The 'Seven against Thebes' of Aeschylus

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work 15 expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book 15 still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

atthtto://books.google.com/

Ot ,

θ16 1998

WEG \

\Y

\

Ἂ ‘on Ὸ κ᾽ αν \ )

== --. Loc WY |
Σ ‘AS

AIZXYAOY EMTA ΕΠῚ OHBAS.

THE

“SEVEN AGAINST THEBES’

OF

AESCHYLUS.

AIZXYAOY ETTA ΕΠῚ OHBAS.

THE

‘SEVEN AGAINST THEBES’

OF

AESCHYLUS,
.»-- ῇἘῇ{

΄

WITH AN

INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, AND
TRANSLATION

BY

«- PS es,

A. W. VERRALL, M.A.,

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,

He aoe

Vee)
Dondon:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK.

1887 4

—

.ἢ»
“-

[The Right of Translation ἐς reserved.|

THE NEW YORK
ὉΠ. LIBNARY
486069

asTOR, LENOX AND
TILDEN FOUNDATIONS.
R 1910 L

Cambridge :
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,

|

PREFACE.

THE play here edited presents, with other kinds of interest
common to Aeschylus’ works in general, the problem of a wide
and most unusual divergence between the judgment of an-
tiquity and the judgment of modern times. It was profoundly
admired by the Athenian spectators of the great dramatic age,
and frequently cited by readers throughout the times of Graeco-
Roman civilization. In modern times even the magnificence
of the verse and the splendour of detached pieces have not
been thought sufficient to support so favourable a view, when
balanced against the supposed want of any merit properly
called dramatic. Whether this disagreement may be explained
or perhaps removed is the question which it will be our first
business to consider.

I have but a few words to say by way of preface to (1) the
text, (2) the explanation, (3) the translation.

For the critical foundation I am indebted almost entirely
to the text and apparatus of Dr Wecklein.

The Introduction and explanatory notes are in the main
the product of independent work. The collection of ‘ uncertain
conjectures’, appended by Dr Wecklein to his text, extends over
nearly 300 pages, of which nearly 50 are filled with those on
this single play. This appalling catalogue, if it proves, as it

vi PREFACE.

does, the dangers of conjecture, also proves not less distinctly
that a very large part of Aeschylus still awaits explanation.
I have endeavoured to profit by both lessons, Where I am
conscious of a particular debt I have of course acknowledged
it. Doubtless however I am much more indebted than I am
aware, particularly to Professor Paley, whose work was my
sole ‘ Aeschylus’ for many years.

As to the translation, it is intended merely to supplement
the commentary, and not as a literary equivalent for the
original. I have aimed at nothing more, perhaps nothing more
is in this case attainable, than the negative merit of not
offending the ear and taste: and even this I am far from
supposing that I have always secured.

Mr J. D. Duff, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, has
kindly aided me in the preparation of the book for the press.

TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
Deember 13, 1886.

Preface

CONTENTS.

Introduction

I.

8.

The Legend of the House of Laius according to Aeschylus.
The Plot of the Play

Cadmeans and Achaeans. The Cadmea

The Sequel of the Story. The Burial of the Argive
Leaders. The Expedition of the Epigoni . .

The Occasion of the Curse of Oedipus .

The Source of the Aeschylean Story

The ‘ Oedipodean Trilogy’

The Text

General Remarks. . .

‘Argument’ (ὑπόθεσις) in the Medicean MS.
Text and Notes
Appendix I. On the Rhythmicat Correspondence of Strophe

and Antistrophe . .
Appendix II. ἔτυμος, ἐτήτυμος, etc. in “Aeschylus (7, heb. 81, 82)
Translation . . . . . .
Index

PAGE

ae ae ——

ieee τ πο πασοος τ νοὶ

INTRODUCTION.

1. Zhe Legend of the House of Latus according to Aeschylus. The
Flot of the Play.

The ‘Seven against Thebes’—for it is certainly too late to change
the not very happy description attached to the play for ever by a
verse of Aristophanes’, and current perhaps even earlier still—takes its
plot from the great attempt made by Adrastus king of Argos and a
confederacy under his leadership, to restore Polynices son of Oedipus to
his country and throne. This expedition was in Greek legendary history
the most famous event excepting, perhaps not even excepting, the
Trojan war. It was the subject of more than one ancient epic poem
known to us by tradition, and probably of many others not now trace-
able. The most successful of these, the Zhebais, was thought worthy
to be attributed to Homer, and seems to have ranked next in reputation
after the J/iad and the Odyssey. The details of the story were variously
told and it received both before and after Aeschylus many develop-
ments, among them some of great literary importance, not accordant
with each other and not always harmonizing with the spint of the
original*, What was the authority followed by Aeschylus in this play,
or whether he followed any one version exactly, there is no external
evidence to show.

Under these circumstances it is desirable, if we would avoid con-
fusion, first to trace clearly, as far as possible, the story actually given by
Aeschylus, and to keep distinct the question how far we may supplement
it from other sources. This is the more worth attention, because it
appears that the Aeschylean version was simple, harmonious, and in
some respects singularly faithful to very ancient traditions.

1 Aristoph. Ran, 1022. | gends will be found in Grote, History of
* A general view of the Theban le- Greece, Part 1. Chap. xiv.
Υ. 4. b

(
7

x INTRODUCTION.

Like the legend which is the subject of the Agamemnon, Choephori,
and Eumenides, the Oedipodean legend in Aeschylus is closely con-
nected with two powers of religion, the oracle of Apollo at Delphi and
the vengeance of the Erimyes or Furies, and probably took shape under
Delphic influence. The sum of it is the destruction of the house of
Laius for disobedience to the command of Apollo.—Laius, king of the
Cadmeans, was thrice warned by the oracle, as he valued the welfare of
his country, to leave no issue of his body. Notwithstanding this, he
begat a son, Oedipus, whom he endeavoured to destroy. The child how-
ever grew up in ignorance of his parents’, and slew his unknown father in
a casual encounter on the road*, Thus Laius himself was punished
and the curse of parricide entailed on the son. The town of the
Cadmearis being ravaged by the Sphinx, a devouring monster who was
to prey upon them “// her riddle should be answered, Oedipus, returning
to his native place, delivered it by answering the riddle and, becoming
king, espoused the widow of Laius, his own mother’. By her he had
four children, two sons, Eteocles and Polynices, and two daughters,
Antigone and Ismene. On the discovery of the truth, the mother slew
herself; Oedipus, loaded with the treble curse of parricide, incest and
matricide*, sank into melancholy madness’. Thus the punishment was
continued upon the second generation. By the madness of Oedipus it
was extended into the third®: offended at the manner in which he was
served and maintained by his sons, he doomed them by his Paterna)
curse ‘so to divide their inheritance with the sword as that their shares
should be equal’. This imprecation, pointing not obscurely to their
mutual death, gave the ever-watchful Erinys occasion to complete the
destruction of the race. After Oedipus’ death, the sons disputed the
succession’; Polynices was expelled, and took refuge with Adrastus, the
powerful king of Argos. There he found another illustrious exile,
Tydeus, of the ancient city of Calydon, banished from his country for

1 The facts in italics are not stated in
the brief summary given in this play (σύ.
728 foll.). But it is clear that the story
in this part bore a general resemblance
to that of Sophocles in the Oedipus Ty-
rannus.

2 See the fragment attributed to Ae-
schylus’ Oedipus (frag. 171, Dindorf).

3 Named Epicaste in the Odyssey (XI.
270), and Iocaste (Jocasta) by Sophocles.

4 Od. le.

5 βλαψίφρων v. 712, μαινομένᾳ κραδίᾳ

v. 766.

6 The details of this part of the story,
extremely obscure owing to the uncer-
tainty of the text in wv. 768—775, are
discussed in a subsequent section.

7 Aeschylus does not say which was
the elder; the curious expression 66.
σπλαγχνα πλευρώματα in v. 874 may per-
haps indicate that in his story they were
twins, which is certainly the supposition
best suiting the sequel.

INTRODUCTION. xi

homicide. Tydeus, fierce and restless, obtained ascendancy in the
counsels of Adrastus, and persuaded him to undertake the restoration
of Polynices'. Adrastus collected a great Achaean host partly of his
own Argives, partly of his allies, of whom one of the most conspicuous
was Parthenopaeus of Arcadia. Amphiaraus the Argive μάντις, both
pious and brave, opposed the expedition and prophesied its failure, but
was compelled to accompany it himself. For a long time this host,
encamped near the Cadmean city, carried on a ‘siege’ (of the same
desultory kind as that of Troy in the Trojan epic), but on the whole
with loss. At length the Achaeans resolved on a ‘crowning assault’’.
The wall of the city had seven gates. All of these were now to be
attacked at once by several divisions (λόχοι), led by seven leaders
chosen from among the chiefs attending the expedition, who bound
themselves by an oath either to carry the city or die in the attempt.
Among the seven chosen for this service are Polynices himself, Tydeus,
and Amphiaraus, who is represented as undertaking the adventure with
the calm bravery of one who foresees his fate. (At this point the
action of the play commences.) In the arrangement of the attack and
defence the fatality, which under the direction of Apollo (see τ. 786)
pursues the house of Laius, brings about a result, which on one side at
least is neither designed nor desired—a personal encounter between the
brothers. As things stand at the beginning of the play this encounter,
necessary to the fulfilment of the curse, is extremely improbable. Both
brothers have reason to dread it. Polynices indeed, as afterwards
appears, is desperate and eager for revenge at any cost. But Eteocles,
in possession of the city and throne, which he has so far successfully
defended, has every motive of reason, religion, and superstition for
avoiding such a duel and every chance of doing so without risk and
without dishonour’, The development of the fatality which brings
them together forms the plot of the first ‘Act’, as it may be called,
vu. I—706, and must be followed with attention.

1 According to some accounts, Ad- Amphiaraus was the virtuous hero. See

rastus gave his daughters in marriage to
the two exiles. The story of Aeschylus
neither confirms nor impeaches this detail.
The marriage of Polynices is the neces-
sary starting-point for the legend of the
E pigoni, which as we shall presently see
was nota part of the original story as
treated by Aeschylus in this play. It
is evident that in Aeschylus’ story the
part of Fydeus was extremely important.
He was in fact the villain of the tale, as

v, 364 etc. and w 555.

2 χρόνον ἤδη τόνδε v. 21—peylory προσ-
βολή Ὁ. 28. The phrase is important
and is to be taken in its full sense. The
plot of the play assumes that with the
failure of this assault the danger of the
city is at an end, the siege is raised,
and the discomfited army retreats.

ὃ For the different situations and mo-
tives of the two princes see v7, 686.

ὦ 2

xii INTRODUCTION.

During the night of the preparation on the part of the besiegers,
Teiresias, the blind prophet, discovers by divination that a great assault
is intended, and informs Eteocles. Eteocles sends out spies to obtain
further information, and at break of day calls the citizens to the
acropolis; where, when the play opens, he is addressing to them an
inspiriting harangue. One of the spies presently returns; he confirms
the warning of Teiresias, and .describes the general plan of the attack.
He has seen the seven selected leaders swearing their oath with a
strange ceremony, and left them arranging by lot the distribution among
them of the several gates. He does not yet know more than this, but
he is going to make a second excursion with the advantage of daylight,
and will then improve his report’. The question whether Polynices
leads a division, being at present of no importance, does not arise; but
of course probability would be strongly against any one chief out of a
great number. And by an extremely skilful dramatic touch the spy 15
made to imply inadvertently that the seven are all Ar7gezes, in itself a
very natural supposition; for he mentions that he saw them hang upon
the chariot of Adrastus ‘keepsakes of themselves for thetr parents at
home’. If this had been strictly true of all the seven, Polynices could
not have been of the number. Eteocles, though dreading the fulfilment
of Oedipus’ curse (v. 70), or rather because he dreads it and not
unnaturally attributes the same feeling to his brother, conceives no
suspicion, but hurries away, as advised by the spy, to place chosen
champions on his part at the several gates. It should be observed that
there is at this time no suggestion that Eteocles himself should be one
of the Cadmean seven. On the contrary the language of the spy implies
_the more natural expectation that Eteocles within, as Adrastus without,
will direct the defence generally*. (In the Phoentssae of Euripides,
which relates the same event but with a wholly different plot, he actually
does so’.)

Thus, if he had been left to carry out his plans at once, the fatal
encounter could not without his deliberate will have come to pass.
But scarcely has he left the acropolis, when a crowd of maidens (the
Chorus) enter in wild disorder. They have heard that the crisis is

1 Note the emphasis dexterously given clear sight. Sophocles in the Astigone

at v. 66 to the fact that the first excur-
sion of the spy was made in the dark.
This is essential to the story. It appears
afterwards that the spy did on this occa-
sion notice a particular characteristic of
Parthenopaeus (v. 516), but it is one
which would have betrayed itself without

(v. 100) makes a fine use of the fact that
the attack was made at sunrise.

2 ἄνδρας ἐκκρίτους πόλεως τάγευσαι ‘ap-
point chosen men of thy citizens’: note
the middle voice.

3 Phoen. 1163 etc.

-.- “-- ee

INTRODUCTION. ΧΕΙ

impending and have seen signs that the enemy are already in motion.
In uncontrollable terror they have fled, as by a common impulse, to
the sanctuary of the acropolis, which they conceive to be under the
special protection of the gods. They cling to the vestments and
wreaths with which the sacred images are adorned, and pour out frantic
supplications. Such panic terrors were supposed by the Greeks to be a
special instrument of the gods, and on this occasion the effect is fatal.
The spectacle of the maidens’ flight and the noise of their cries have so
far disheartened the defenders, that Eteocles is forced to suspend his
arrangements and return to the acropolis to restore quiet (v. 165).
This with great difficulty and loss of time he succeeds in doing, and
again rushes off to resume his dispositions at the wall. But before
doing so he announces to all that he intends Azmself to be one of the
seven Cadmean champions. This, as already noticed, is not the original
nor the most natural plan. The necessity of re-assuring by personal
example his dispirited men, some of whom have either actually fled in
pursuit of the maidens to the acropolis or come there with the prince
(wv. 167, 179), calls forth the declaration naturally enough: but it is
a fatal step and fatally brought to pass. Even now however had he
so far followed his first plan as to post his champions at once, the fatal
contingency would still have been highly improbable. But at the last
moment an unhappy thought strikes him. Fearing apparently, and
with good reason, a renewal of the recent disturbance at the acropolis,
particularly if alarming news should arrive there in his absence, he
declares that he will bring his stx selected champions to the acropolis, and
complete there the assignment of their posts; for which he expects
still to have time before the return of his spies’.

Once more, if this had so turned out, the event would probably
have been different ; and it certainly would have been, if on the other
hand the spy had arrived at the acropolis before the king, and the
names of the assailant leaders had become known before. those for
the defence were distributed. But though the chances against Destiny
are thus many to one, the one fatal event occurs: the king’s party with
their attendants on the one hand, and the spy on the other, both at full
speed, arrive,—as the expectants notice, little knowing the significance
of the fact—exactly together (vv. 356—361).

1 The manner in which this resolution a deliberate artifice of the writer. The
is announced is peculiar and effective(wv. second plan, which is obviously incon-
269-271). The intention to return is venient and arises only from a perplexed
suddenly disclosed by the word μολών, desire to be ‘in two places at once’,

the sentence up to that word suggesting is really formed and adopted in the
a wholly different expectation. This is moment of speaking.

ΧΙν INTRODUCTION.

Still the favourable chances are by no means exhausted. If the
spy makes his report, as on the first occasion, at once and without
break, Eteocles will learn the truth, and will adapt his own dispositions
accordingly. But here again heaven over-rules. The spy dashes at
once into his report, but observes in the first few words that, though
the enemy are in position, the attack is delayed for the present by
Amphiaraus from defect of the auspices. He has thus time not only
to give the names and distribution of the chiefs, but also to describe—
a most important matter according to ancient conceptions—such pecu-
liarities in the language or appearance of each, as may guide the
king in selecting his champions with regard to the ‘good omen’ of
the choice. In this dialogue the fatal course proceeds to a tragic
climax. The spy, not knowing any special reason to the contrary,
naturally describes the hostile champions in the order of the gates’.
He reports, not without irony, their boasts and insolence, and pauses
after each description that the king may name the opponent. Eteocles
replies with great spirit, gaiety, and apparent success, making points to
prove the good fortune of his choices, and jesting more freely than
reverently to show his complete confidence. How this bearing, enhanced
in effect by the solemn and sometimes ominous tone of the Chorus,
would appear to Hellenic superstition, the modern reader may under-
stand from an example near in time to ourselves, but in sentiment
much nearer to Aeschylus. “7 think”, says the old gardener in Guy
Mannering, “the gaugers ‘fie’: by which word the common people
express those violent spirits which they think a presage of death.”
At the sixth gate a graver tone is introduced by the recital of the final
warnings addressed by Amphiaraus, the sixth champion on the Argive
side, to Tydeus and Polynices, the chief authors of the war—one of the
finest pieces of verse in Aeschylus. Eteocles replies with an edifying
lamentation on the recklessness of fortune, which confounds the judgments
of heaven. And now comes the climax. As the bystanders (and
the audience) know that the seven are already chosen, though the
distribution renfained to be fixed, and that Eteocles himself is one,
it has now become evident that the king has destined the seventh gate
for himself, and is publicly committed to the enterprise. But the spy
knows nothing of this, and announces point-blank that the assailant
still unnamed, whom choice has placed among the seven and the order
of the lot has assigned to the seventh gate,—is Polynices.

He then delivers, with unsuspicious fidelity, what is in fact a bitter
personal challenge from Polynices to his brother; and perceiving the

1 As to this order see below.

INTRODUCTION. ; “XV

sensation which he has ‘created, though unable to account for it, con-
cludes with a stammering apology for doing his duty by a faithful
report’.

Eteocles for the moment is utterly appalled’: but ashamed and
afraid to go back from his promise, stung to fury by the challenge
of Polynices, and above all, convinced by the course of these incidents
that the destiny of his race is not to be averted, he puts on a desperate
assurance, dashes aside the expostulations of the women, and rushes
to meet his fate.

Thus ends the first part of the play, separated from the second by
the assault and its defeat. It is remarkable that in the choric song
which occupies this interval, there is not a trace of the wild agitation
which the women display in the earlier scene. They are occupied
entirely with the sin and the curse of Laius. Mere physical fear
of the enemy is driven out by the more awful terrors of Destiny and
the dread ‘lest the city perish along with its princes’. The announce-
ment of the catastrophe is grave and brief; the attack has failed at
all the gates and the city is safe, but —the brothers have fallen by each
other’s hands’*.

Thus the curse is finally fulfilled in the third generation ; and “with
a double victory the evil genius has finished his work” (z. 940). So
think the Chorus, and not unnaturally, the house having now no male
inheritor, and being as a royal house literally extinguished, so that the
authority in the town is assumed, as on a vacancy, by a ‘provisional
government’*. But it soon appears that there is a sequel still The
bodies of the two princes are brought in by their sisters Antigone and

1 wv. 636—639. tions are just sufficient to supply a formal

2 wy. 640—641.

3 At this point the text shows signs of
some disturbance, of which different views
have been taken. I have given in the
notes to vv. 788—816 that which I think
most probable. In what appears to have
been the original version, the fulfilment
of Destiny entirely overshadows and ex-
cludes from view the deliverance which
accompanies it. This may not be wholly
natural, but it is consistent with the
scheme of the play, of which the subject
is the doom of the house of Laius, not
the escape of the town. Indeed the
error, if such it be, is already committed
in the previous choric song. ‘The inser-

remedy to this defect. Whether they are
improvements I shall not pretend to say.
I think it possible, though not probable,
that they are by the poet himself.

4 On this curious ‘anachronism’ of poli-
tics see v.997 and note. Of the daughters
no account is taken, but of course no in-
ference could be drawn from this political
doctrine of inheritance, as to the doctrine
of blood-relationship held either by the
original author of the story, or by Aeschy-
lus. It will be noticed that in Aeschylus’
version, the punishment denounced by
Apollo against Laius is pointed, perhaps
intentionally, towards political disaster—
θνάσκοντα γέννας ἅτερ σῴζειν πόλιν τ. 734.

Xvi INTRODUCTION.

Ismene. The sisters and the Chorus join in singing their funeral dirge,
and are about to give them burial in the royal sepulchre (v. 993), when
a herald enters and announces a decree of the public authority.
Eteocles shall receive the funeral honours which are his due; but
Polynices, having deliberately made himself an enemy, shall be treated
as such, and his body shall be cast out without any rites ‘to be devoured
by the fowls of the air’. Antigone indignantly declares her intention
to frustrate this decree by performing herself the ritual acts necessary to
‘burial’, and the herald with an ineffectual protest retires. After some
hesitation, half the Chorus resolve to support Antigone, the other half
to obey the authorities. The two processions set forth accordingly, and
the play closes under the cloud of fresh troubles to come.

2. Cadmeans and Achaeans. T, he Cadmea.

It will perhaps have been observed that in the preceding summary
the city, which is the scene of the play, has received no name. It has
no name, properly speaking, in the play itself, and it is not unimportant
to mark this fact, for it is closely connected with other peculiarities
of the Aeschylean story, interesting both from the artistic and the historic
point of view. We call the play after Aristophanes ‘The Seven against
Thebes’: but neither ‘Thebes’ or ‘Thebans’ are once mentioned in it,
nor are these names in any way suggested to the mind. The city is
always the Cadmean city (Καδμεία πόλις v. 997), the city named after
Cadmus (ἐπώνυμος Κάδμον πόλις v. 125), the people always Cadmeans,
the burghers or the descendants of Cadmus (Καδμεῖοι, Καδμογενεῖς etc.,
v. 1 and passim). ‘This is the more remarkable, because it is, I believe,
entirely peculiar to Aeschylus. Not only in Pindar, Sophocles and
Euripides, but even in the rare and brief allusions of the Homeric
poems’, the city besieged by Adrastus is named Θήβη or Θῆβαι: and
though the names Καδμεῖοι (or Καδμείωνες) are applied to the inhabitants,
these are, at least in the works of Aeschylus’ contemporary Pindar and
in those of the later Attic dramatists, merely poetical variations for
Theban (Θηβαῖος), which is also used freely and without distinction. If
this peculiarity of the Aeschylean nomenclature were an isolated fact, we
might perhaps fancy that Aeschylus, for some obscure reason, purposely
avoided the name of Zzhebes, though knowing it to be appropriate
to his story. But further examination shows that no such artificial

1 ¢.¢. 2. 1V. 388. These allusions are would alone show that they follow some

almost always connected with the praises _ tradition widely different from that of Ae-
of Tydeus or Tydeus’ son Diomede, which _ schylus and probably Argive.

-"-.

“πΦι owe
-

INTRODUCTION. XVil

supposition is necessary or admissible. Aeschylus calls the town of
his imagination ἡ Καδμεία simply because it ἐς the Cadmean City, be-
cause in the very ancient and simple story which he followed it had
no other name, and he in this and other such matters faithfully reflects /
his original.

It is of course well known that the Boeotians and Thebans of
history did not pretend to be the earliest inhabitants of their country and
city. It was not, according to Thucydides, till the sixtieth year after
the taking of Ilium that a tribe from Arne in Thessaly brought with
them their name of Βοιωτοί into ‘the country previously called the
Cadmets’’. And although for common purposes it might be said that
Cadmus founded ‘Thebes’, and a poet might even be excused for
sayin, that it was ‘an evil day for Thebes when Cadmus came there’’,
it was not supposed that such language was accurate. ‘Cadmus’, says
Pausanias, ‘founded the city which retains to the present day the name
Cadmea. When the city afterwards increased, the Cadmea became the
acropolis to the lower city of Zhebes’*. This city was built and
named, according to Pausanias, by invaders, Amphion and Zethus,
who during the infancy of Laius for a time dispossessed the Cadmean
dynasty; and he quotes the statement of the Odyssey (ΧΙ. 262) that
‘these, Ar.phion and Zethus, were the first who built the seat of Thebé
with seven gates, and walled it; for strong though they were, they could
not dwell without walls in spacious Thebé’. Without following the
Greek antiquaries in their attempt to construct out of the legends a
continuous history with names and dates, we may accept the tradition
that Thebes, like other towns, grew by accretion to a small primitive
fortress, and that this fortress was called from the first as always the πόλις
Καδμείας. It was of this primitive city that the story dramatized by
Aeschylus was first told, and it has come down to us through him
‘almost pure in its Cadmean shape. As the name of Thebes is not
present in his work, so neither is the Theban religion. ‘Thebes is the
city of Amphion, of Heracles, and above all of the god Bacchus. In
the Ovdipus Tyrannus, when the gods of Thebes are invoked to stay a
pestilence, it is the ‘ruddy Bacchus named with the name of this land’
wi 2se invocation concludes the prayer. In the Antigone, when the
gods of Thebes are to be thanked for the defeat of the Argives, it is
ὁ Θήβας ἐλελίχθων Βάκχιος who is invited to lead the festivity. In
the Phoenissae it is a chief glory of Thebes to be the birth-place of
Βρόμιος, Βάκχιον χόρευμα παρθένοισι Θηβαίαις. But in this play, when

1 πρότερον Καδμηΐδα γῆν καλουμένην 2 Eur. Phoen. 4, 5. 3 Paus. 9. 5. 2.
Thuc. 1. 12: 4 Oed. Tyr. 210, Ant. 154, Phoen. 655.

Xviii INTRODUCTION.

‘the gods of the Cadmeans are summoned, one after another, to defend
the town, the Zhebanus deus, the grandson, according to the Bacchic
legend, of Cadmus himself, is never mentioned, nor is there any reference
throughout to the persons or the stories connected with his name’.
Heracles also is entirely absent. The name of Amphion, the second
founder, who in the Axzigone has equal honour with the first founder
Cadmus’, does just occur as that of a hero buried near one of the
gates (v. 515); but this mention only makes more conspicuous the fact
that he is never mentioned as founder, nor connected at all with the
religion of the place. The only religious legend known is the legend
of Cadmus, and that in the simplest shape,—his marriage with Harmonia
(union), the daughter of Ares (masculine courage) and Cypris (feminine
beauty), and the sowing of the serpent’s teeth (vv. 125, 399). Of his
connexion with Tyre, which is so prominent in the /hoentssae, or
with the Egyptian Thebes, there is not a hint, a significant indication
that, as might be suspected on other grounds, these tales did not
belong to the primitive and genuine tradition of an inland town in
Boeotia®.

Equally peculiar to Aeschylus are the ethnic relations of the
combatants. The Peloponnesus, like Boeotia itself, is in this play not
yet Dorian, and the besieging confederacy are called consistently and
distinctively by the name given by Homer to all Greeks, Achaeans, a
name which in the rival play of the Phoenissae, for example, does not
occur at all, And what is perhaps even more remarkable as a proof of
antique tradition, the AYe//enic name is used in a manner which appears
to be absolutely without parallel. As the Achaia of this play is much
narrower than that of Homer and much larger than that of history,
so the Hellas of this play is neither the small Homeric Hellas, a part
of a part of Thessaly, nor the ‘modern Hellas’ of Thucydides. The
Cadmeans speak the tongue of He//as (v. 72) and observe the [Hellenic
customs (v. 255); the invaders are of alien speech (v. 155) and
have uses which the Cadmeans regard as not Hellenic’. This language,

1 Language derived from the religion
of Bacchus is occasionally used by the
speakers (Quds in vv. 485, 821), but
this of course no more proves that the
story followed by Aeschylus recognized
that religion than v. 263 proves that it
contained the word τροπαῖα.

2 Ant. 1135 Κάδμου πάροικοι καὶ δόμων
᾿Αμφίονος.

_ 5. It would not be here to the purpose

to investigate the origin of the Phoeni-
cian element in the story; but I incline
to the view that it is no genuine myth at
all, but the deliberate fabrication of quasi-
historic antiquarians, building on a few
casual or fancied etymologies such as
that of Onca or Onga ; see Paus. 9. 12. 2.

4 βάρβαρον τρόπον v. 450. The use of
the word βάρβαρος must probably be re-
garded as an ‘anachronism’ like that

INTRODUCTION. xix

peculiar as it is, admits of a historic explanation. The stages by which
the Hellenic name was extended cannot now be exactly traced, but we
should naturally suppose that a name which began in Phthiotis must
have established itself as a general name in the regions north of
the Isthmus some time before it was carried by the ‘Dorian invasion’
into the Peloponnesus ; and at this period the story of the siege of the
Cadmea seems to have taken the shape in which we find it in this play.

From an artistic point of view the chief interest of these facts is in
their bearing on the topography of the play. Euripides in the Phoenissae,
though his nomenclature is altogether confused, retains for his ‘Thebes’
one archaic quality, namely that it is very small. ‘What success we
have won before the towers’, says a soldier to Creon, ‘thou knowest, for
the circuit of the walls is not so long but that thou must know what is
done’’. This is convenient for the moment, though in some ways it
would better have suited the story of Euripides to suppose the city
larger. But in Aeschylus a very small circuit is essential to the
narrative. When the spy on his second return describes the position of
the besiegers, the seven assailants are already at or near their respective
posts, and waiting only the permission of Amphiaraus to commence the
attack. Yet three of them, Tydeus at the first gate, Amphiaraus at the
sixth, and Polynices at the seventh, are within speaking distance ;
Tydeus is taunting Amphiaraus, and Amphiaraus replying with
denunciations of Tydeus and Polynices,—a dialogue highly important to
the moral effect of the piece*. And with this is connected another
point even more important: the order of the gates in the description of the
spy ts aknown fixed order, and ts supposed to be the order of place®. That
it is not a casual order is shown by the allusions to the manner of
allotment among the assailants ; the lot of the Argive Eteoclus, coming
out third from the helmet in which they were shaken, assigned him to
the gate JVeistae (v. 445), and so forth ; language which implies of itself
that the gate in question zs the third. It must also be an order known
to the spy independently of the allotment, which he did not witness,
though he has seen the positions taken by the various chiefs as the
result of it. Moreover, the last gate is described simply as Zhe Seventh
(v. 618); since the name is given or implied in every other case, it 15

of τροπαῖον in v. 263, but so far as it wz. 364—370, 487, 514-518, 557--

marks a contrast between ‘Achaeans’ 564.

and ‘ Hellenes’ it is perfectly consistent 8 The order is (1) Προιτίδες, (2) Ἤλεκ-

with the rest of the play. pat, (3) Νήϊσται, (4) ᾿Ογκαῖαι (ἢ), (5)
1 Phoen. 1356. Boppatat, (6) 'Ομολωΐδες, (7γ) Ἕβδομαι.,

2 See the whole description, especially

xx INTRODUCTION.

reasonable to suppose that this is the frofer name, which would alone
go far to prove that the order of enumeration is local’. The express
indications of place also correspond, as far as they go. The gate
LElectrae, which its name’, as well as extraneous proof, shows to have
been the southern, is second, the orth Gaie is fifth. The first gate 15
fixed on the east side by the mention of the /smenus and, by its
proximity to the second, at the south-east. The sixth, seventh and
first gates, which are the head-quarters of the Argive attack, would
thus be, as we should naturally expect, those of the east side. In short
nothing in the play suggests that the order is not supposed to be local ;
everything suggests that it is: and it would not be necessary to enlarge
on the matter, if it were not that the attempt has been sometimes made to
use Aeschylus’ true or imaginary picture of the Cadmea as an authority
on the topography of Zedbes, and in particular to combine, as referring
to one and the same wall, the data of Aeschylus and of the traveller
Pausanias*, As this supposition would, in my opinion, make the history,
scenery, and plot of the play unintelligible, it must be briefly con-
sidered.

Pausanias visited and described Thebes in the second century A.D.
In the six centuries between this time and that of Aeschylus the city had
been altered and refortified several times, and once at least (by Alexander
the Great) totally destroyed. Pausanias’ account of the legendary sites
is derived apparently from his guides, and it may be worth noting
that this play is not mentioned in it. . Considering all this, even if we
knew that the poet and the traveller meant to describe cities occupying
the same area, it would be unreasonable to expect that the descriptions
should tally very closely. But in fact one of the few things, which
the confused account of Pausanias can be said to establish with
certainty, is this, that the town of Aeschylus’ story, so far from being
co-extensive with Pausanias’ Zhebes, did not even cover the whole of
what at the later time was called Zhe Acropolis and supposed to be the
foundation of Cadmus. There are two points fixed in the course of the
Aeschylean wall; (1) that the place (and image?) sacred to "Oyxa or
“Oyya, a local deity identified with Pallas, was outside the wall near
the fourth gate (vv. 473, 488; see also v. 149): (2) that the ‘ barrow
of Amphion’ was opposite the fifth or orth gate and—the description
naturally suggests this if it does not absolutely assert it—outside the

1 Euripides also gives names (not 2 The Shining Gate or Gate of the
always those of Aeschylus) to six gates, Sun; see Lex. s. uv. ἠλέκτωρ.
and- describes one simply as “EBdopar ; 8 See Smith’s Dictionary of Geography,

Phoen. 1134. Thebae Boeotiae.

INTRODUCTION. Xx!
wall (v. 515). Now the altar and image of “Oyya are mentioned by
Pausanias in connexion with ‘that part of the upper city which in our
time is converted into an dyopd’ (καθ᾽ ὅτι τῆς ἀκροπόλεως ἀγορὰ ἐφ᾽
ἡμῶν πεποίηται); and here according to his informants had been the
site of the house of Cadmus, the dedicator of the statue’. The ‘not
very large mound of earth’, which was shown to Pausanias as the
monument of Amphion and Zethus, was also within the walls, and
apparently at some distance from the nearest gate*. It is interesting
however to notice, that the fosttion of these two monuments, as
distinguished from their relation to the wall, accords with Aeschylus
very well. What was shown as the altar of Onca seems to have lain
north and a little west of the hill properly called the Cadmea, the
tomb of Amphion north and a little east of it, as they should lie,
if Aeschylus’ city is the Cadmean hill itself with a small area round
it’. Whether the real Καδμεία πόλις of ancient times really had a
wall with seven gates, or whether this feature was historically true
only of the enlarged city of Thebes, and has been worked into the
Primitive story by Aeschylus or some predecessor, we cannot say, nor
for artistic purposes does it matter. But it is not unimportant that
the order of the gates should be imagined as a natural order according
to which they are known and familiarly named. For it is thus that
the postponement of Polynices’ gate to the end of the report is seen
to be natural and unpremeditated, and this, as will be seen from the
preceding section, is material to the plot‘.

1 Paus. 9. 12 88 2, 3. Thebes was

a decaying place at that time, and the
upper city only was inhabited, having
apparently been much altered to suit the
changed condition of things.
_ ? Paus.g. 168 4,17 §4,18§1. Pausa-
nias is so irregular and discursive that
any statement depending on his descrip-
tions of locality must be made with re-
Serve ; but it seems that from 16 ὃ 4 he
takes the sites from his gate Proetides
inwards, from 18 § 1 outwards; and this
is the view adopted in Forchhammer’s
plan.

8 See Forchhammer’s plan, based on
Pausanias, and given in the article above
cited. As to supposing the Thebes of
this plan to be the Καδμεία πόλις of

Aeschylus, it is. sufficient to note that:

Tydeus and Amphiaraus, waiting near the

gates Proetides and Homoloides respec-
tively, would be more than a mile apart.
4 Of the names of the gates, the origin
is quite uncertain except in the case of
the Ἤλεκτραι. But it is possible that
the names Προιτίδες and Naira, or as
Aeschylus gives it Νήϊσται, are really local,
and derived from mpo-t-ros and vy9-t-ros
meaning respectively Foremost and Hind-
most or Front and Back. For the latter
compare νήτη. According to Aeschylus’
plan the IIpocrides must be on the east side
towards the Ismenus, the Νηϊσται (being
between the "HAexrpa: and the gate of
Onca) on the west side. It is natural that
the city should be conceived as ‘ fronting’
towards itschief river, and this also accords
with the fact that the order of enumera-
tion begins with the Προιτίδες. Aeschylus
himself derives Προιτίδες from an epony-

XXil INTRODUCTION.

Small as the Καδμεία πόλις is, it has still two parts; (i) the top
of the hill or ἀκρόπολις (sometimes called as at Athens by the name
πόλις in a narrower sense), where are the wooden images of the
πολισσοῦχοι θεοί; and (ii) the lower area enclosed by the wall. The
scene is laid in the sanctuary on the top of the hill.

Although Aeschylus’ play is not of course an archaeological study
and exhibits more than one ‘anachronism’, the colouring of it corre-
sponds well enough on the whole with the archaic limits of the locality.
The Zhebes of Sophocles and Euripides is, like the historical Thebes
of Pindar, a city of chariots and horses (Soph. “4,2. 149, Eur. Phoen.
1100 etc.). But in this play nothing is more remarkable than the
terror caused among the Cadmeans by the chariots and horses which
the Achaeans have brought from aptum equis Argos. For the Cadmean
maidens excuse might be made, extravagant as are their screams at
the rattle of a wheel or the sound of a hoof; but even Eteocles is made
to talk of the enemy’s horses very much as a Roman might have
talked of the elephants of Pyrrhus. The heroes of Homer would
scarcely have thought it high praise of a soldier’s bravery to say that
he would not fly ‘at the roaring neigh of impatient horses’ (v. 462).
Of Cadmean chariots or horses we hear nothing’; and consistently
with this we observe that the arms of the Achaeans generally and their
skill in working metal are a subject of amazement, and even horror, to
the Cadmean narrator (v. 477). The shields borne by the Achaean Ae
κάσπιδες, their make and decoration, are objects of the liveliest interest.
On the Cadmean side the accoutrements are in every sense much
humbler, and though several Cadmean ‘blazons’ are described or
mentioned, there is no sign that the shields were even of metal, while
the manner in which the chorus start at the sound or imagined sound
of ‘brazen shields’ (v. 145) goes to show that in the Cadmea it was
at least not very familiar. Indeed throughout the play the splendour

mous person Προῖτος, but this we may different from those of Aeschylus’, that it

class with the derivation of Ludgate from
King Lud. From the description of the
attack in the Phoenissae (1090 foll.)
nothing definite can be gathered as to
the position of the gates: though it adds
a certain point to the expression καὶ πρῶτα
μὲν προσῆγε Νηίσταις πύλαις λόχον...
Παρθενοπαῖος (25. 1104), if Euripides also,
like Aeschylus, conceived this gate to be
the farthest from the point whence the
Argives started. However the nomencla-
ture and frame of Euripides’ play are so

is not safe to combine them. The con-
ception of Euripides seems to be made
up of touches from the prehistoric Cad-
mea and the historic Thebes. The other
descriptions cited in the Dictionary of
Geography (from Nonnus, Hyginus and
others) have even less bearing on the
Aeschylean plan; which taken by itself
is perfectly clear and consistent.

1 Unless the title ἕσπιος given to Posei-
don in v, 122 may be taken as a trace of
such.

INTRODUCTION. Xxili

and power of the Achaeans and their overweening reliance on their
advantages are prominent topics, and serve to point the moral of their
defeat. And these traits, though the details may be freely imagined
by the poet, were in the main given by the tradition; for they recur
in Pindar, who certainly did not go to the Athenian dramatists for
his conceptions of Theban war. Pindar narrates how the host of
Adrastus, defying the monitions of Zeus, ‘hasted to come unto fore-
shown destruction with their weapons of brass and with their chariot-
gear’ (χαλκέοις ὅπλοισιν ἱππείοις τε σὺν ἔντεσιν Nem. 9. 22). It is possible
that the tradition itself was a work of pure imagination, but it has all
the air of reality; and it is quite credible that at the time of the contests
dimly reflected in this story the Cadmeans really had little metal
and no war-chariots or horses trained for war, or were at least signally
deficient in these respects. They were certainly ruder than their
adversaries, or at least so imagined by Aeschylus, in other respects;
for while the art of expressing ideas “ by combinations of figures” is
mentioned not without respect (v. 455), the Cadmeans themselves,
if they can read, have not disused that more primitive method of
expression, in which “swift” is rendered not by the letters ὠκύς or
ποδώκης, but simply by the picture of a foot (vv. 541, 610). Of the
besieging army we hear little but that it is vast, mighty in horses and
chariots, and composed of various peoples. The oath of the seven is
swom by Ares and Phobos, Ares having the added title of Enyos
(Evvds), perhaps to distinguish him from the Cadmean Ares’. “Apys
Ἐνυάλιος and Φόβος appear in Homer as Achaean Bods ; the name
Ἔννώς apparently occurs here only.

But there is one thing which Aeschylus neither says nor in any way
suggests concerning the Achaean expedition, though by an obvious and
easily explicable error he is often supposed to say it: and that is, that
it was conducted by seven chiefs. When Pausanias visited Argos, he
was shown the statues of Polynices and the other six of the chiefs
accompanying Adrastus, who fell in the attack on the Theban wall, and
was informed that the reduction of the number to seven was due to
the authority of Aeschylus, which had been followed even at Argos,
though in reality the Argive chiefs alone had been more numerous, and
others besides had joined them from Messene and Arcadia*. The in-

14.48. See note. γαγεν Αἰσχύλος, πλειόνων Ex τε “Apyous
7 Paus. 11. 20. 4. ἀνδριάντες ἑστήκασι ἡγεμόνων καὶ Μεσσήνης καί τινων καὶ
Πολυνείκους τοῦ Οἰδίποδος καὶ ὅσοι σὺν ᾿Αρκάδων στρατευσαμένων. τούτων δὲ τῶν
ἐκείνῳ τῶν ἐν τέλει πρὸς τὸ τεῖχος paxd- ἑπτά, ἐπηκολούθασι γὰρ καὶ ᾿Αργεῖοι τῇ
μενοι τὸ τῶν Θηβαίων ἐτελεύτησαν. τούτους Αἰσχύλου ποιήσει, πλησίον κεῖνται κτλ.
Τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐς μόνων ἑπτὰ ἀριθμὸν κατή-

XXIV INTRODUCTION.:

formants of Pausanias may possibly have meant only that the prominence
given in the play to a certain seven, as the leaders of the divisions in the
final attack, had caused their confederates to be forgotten; which is
the truth. But they very likely believed that Aeschylus himself, 72e
some of his successors, represented the seven as the leaders of -the
expedition ; for the same thing is stated repeatedly in modern books’.
It is however a mistake, and a mistake of serious consequence to the
comprehension of the play. Aeschylus followed in this, as in other
matters, the old tradition, the tradition which the guides of Pausanias
supposed him to have falsified. His ‘seven’ are the leaders not of
the expedition but of the great and final attack. ‘The expedition
has one leader, Adrastus, and the seven are chosen, or volunteer, for
this particular service from the multitude of chiefs acting under him.
That there were seven leaders of the expedition and no more Aeschylus
not only does not say, but his whole plot presumes and requires the
contrary. For in that case the ἄνδρες ἑπτά of the spy’s first report
(v. 42) must have been identified at once, and the subsequent evolution
and crisis of the drama would have no meaning. It would indeed be
not a connected story at all, but a mere string of casual incidents ; and
perhaps a belief that this is so may account for the comparatively
slight attention which the play has received in modern times.

4. The Sequel of the Story. -.The Burial of the Argive Leaders. The
Expedition of the Epigont.

As to the immediate result of the Achaean attack the legend of
Aeschylus, as it is foreshown by the hints and anticipations of this
play, accords with the general] tradition. ‘The attack was defeated,
Capaneus was slain by the thunder which he defied, and all the other
leaders fell in fight save the pious Amphiaraus. For him the bolt of
Zeus clave the earth under his chariot as he fled, and so he passed
away*. Having thus accomplished his own predictions, he enjoyed per-
petual honour as the semi-divine patron of an oracle famous throughout
antiquity. Of the Cadmean champions, Eteocles fell by the hand of his
brother, and Melanippus, though he slew his opponent Tydeus, was

1 For example Grote, History of Greece
vol. 1. (8 vol. edn.) p. 228, says ‘‘The
Attic dramatists describe this expedition
as having been conducted by seven chiefs,
one to each of the seven celebrated gates
of Thebes’’. Sophocles does (0. C. 1305)

and Euripides ; but this is one of the in-
numerable details in which the dramatists
differ. .

3 Pind. Nem. 9. 24.- See on vw. 554,
616.

or

INTRODUCTION. XXV

himself also slain apparently in pursuit by Amphiaraus, according to
the ominous fear of the Cadmean maidens’. The Argive army, foiled
in this great attack, fled hastily away’.

But we cannot infer from this general agreement that the sequel of
the story, as imagined by Aeschylus, included all the incidents which
may be found elsewhere. ‘There are here, as in the story itself, many
differences of detail, and some of general importance, between different
writers. One of the most important relates to the treatment of the
Argive dead. In the civilized times of Hellas it was a religious duty to
accord even to an enemy those rites of sepulture on which the future
well-being of the dead was supposed to depend. In the time of Aeschylus
It was a regular sequel to a battle, that the defeated side ‘took up their
dead under protection of a truce’, accorded for the express purpose.
But the establishment of this practice was a comparatively late refine-
ment. Terrible as it was to receive no burial, this was in the ‘heroic’
times a part of the risk which the warrior ran. The conqueror might
grant him bunial, as he might grant him life, but both were a matter of
grace, and both, as we see in Homer, were often refused. To the
heroic bard it seems a natural part of the horrors of war that, as is said
in the opening of the //ad, it ‘gives men to feast the dogs and birds’.
When the vanquished has given any special provocation the victor
exacts without scruple the fullest revenge in his power. Apart there-
fore from direct evidence we might assume that in a story so ancient as
that of the Cadmea the bodies of those who would have destroyed the
Cadmean liberties were treated, when they fell into the power of the
Cadmeans, according to their deserts; that they were not buried, but
‘cast to the dogs and to the birds’; and that no very ancient version of
the story made this matter the subject either of apology or of invective.
It happens moreover that in spite of the loss of the epic poems we
have positive evidence upon the point. Pausanias*, after descnbing

1 wv. 404—408. Cf. Pausanias 1x. 18.1.
His tomb was shown to Pausanias near
the gate Proetides which he defended.
The general language of v. 784 does not
exclude the subsequent death of one of
the champions. There are probably more
allusions like v. 406 in the language used
respecting each Argive and Cadmean
champion, which we, not having the
Aeschylean legend as a whole, are unable
to follow.

2 Of the general battle before the walls,
which according ‘to some versions (eg.

V. 4.

the Phoentssae) succeeds the attack of the
gates, Aeschylus says nothing, and it
could scarcely find a place in his story.
(See vv. 777—787). Indeed the prover-
bial phrase ‘ Cadmean victory ’ for a dear-
bought victory, which is associated with
this battle (Paus. 1X. 9. 3), comes plainly
from the Argive counter-legend, to which
also belongs the story of the Zpzgonti.
Aeschylus’ story in this play is purely
Cadmean.
3 Paus. Ix. 18. 2.

XXVI INTRODUCTION.

the grave of Melanippus, the slayer of Tydeus, which was shown to
him at Thebes, continues thus: “Close to this are three unwrought
stones. It is asserted dy those Thebans, who record the antiquities of
their town", that it is Tydeus who lies there, and that he was buried by
Maion: in proof of which statement they produced a verse from the
Ttiad, Τυδέος ὃν Θήβῃσι χυτὴ κατὰ γαῖα καλύπτει." Unluckily this verse
was not to be found in the best copies of the //ad, and was known by
the ancient critics to be a forgery*. The //sad however did record in
another place that Tydeus on a certain occasion spared the life of
Maion®. This curious story reveals the following facts: (1) writers of
Thebes were anxious to prove that the deviser of Adrastus’ expedition
was buried there; (2) the ancient evidence did not support them, for
they tried to garble it; and (3) they were obliged to do this with
caution, claiming for Tydeus only an obscure and private burial, and
accounting for it in a way which being peculiar to his case could not,
strictly speaking, prove anything beyond it. Clearly therefore the
documents most in point, the Cadmean or Theban epics, did not
assert that the Cadmeans buried or permitted the burial of their fallen
enemies, and if they did not assert the contrary, at least assumed it.
The same inference may be drawn from the Athenian legend which sup-
plies the plot of Euripides’ Suppiants. According to this, Adrastus, being
refused permission to bury his companions, repaired to Athens and im-
plored the aid of Theseus against this outrageous cruelty ; whereupon the
generous and humane Athenians marched to Thebes, defeated the
insolent victors, and brought the bodies to Eleusis, where Adrastus
buried them and their graves were shown. Of this story, which like
many of the Athenian legends bears marks of a late origin, it is plain
that no part can possibly have belonged to the original Cadmean
version, except the fact that the Cadmeans did not give their enemies
burial. This, as it does not of itself tend to the glory of Athens, we
may reasonably suppose that the Athenian narrators did not invent
but found ; and the use which they made of it throws light upon the
motives of the Theban antiquarians, who tried to get rid of it. But
there was one Theban who disdained their modest methods of in-
sinuation and interpolation. Pindar has himself informed us that he
did not feel himself bound by the authority of traditions which he
thought dishonourable to religion*; and we should do wrong to suppose
him less bold in the sacred duty of defending his native town. Twice

1 Θηβαίων ol τὰ ἀρχαῖα μνημονεύοντες δὲ ᾿Αριστοφάνει οὐκ ἦν. Schol.
Τυδέα φασὶν κτλ. 3 7/1, Iv. 398.
2 J], XIV. 114. Ζηνόδοτος ἠθέτει, παρὰ 4 0). 1. 36.

INTRODUCTION. “xxvii
in his extant poems he makes occasion to say with circumstantial pre-
cision, that Adrastus solemnly burnt his dead, with the exception of
Amphiaraus, on Theban soil, exactly as he would have been permitted to
do in Pindar’s own time’. We need not however go beyond Pindar’s
own words to discover that he is here performing the office of a good
Theban, as described by Euripides, not without malice, through the
mouth of Cadmus—“If this (Dionysus) be not a god, as thou sayest,
let him be so styled in thy house, and maintain the honourable false-
hood of his divinity, that all our race may have the more glory”’. It is
no easy thing to interpolate successfully an ancient story, and both the
Athenian fiction and the Theban fiction involve a difficulty of which
Pindar at least was perfectly conscious. If all the Argive dead ob-
tained due honours, how was the divine justice manifested in the case of
Amphiaraus? Ampbhiaraus is the one virtuous man drawn by circum-
stances into a wicked enterprise, against which he protests to the last®.
Moral feeling requires that his fate should be sharply distinguished
from that of his companions, The ancient legend fulfilled this re-
quirement perfectly: Amphiaraus ended indeed his mortal life, but in
a miraculous manner, which saved him from the worst part of death
and secured to him eternal honour. In fact the gods themselves pro-
vided him with honourable burial. But if Tydeus and the rest all
received as of course solemn and peaceful obsequies, with funeral
orations by the eloquent Adrastus (which Pindar asserts), the holy
prophet was distinguished from the reckless murderer only by an end
doubtfully preferable and (to his disadvantage) by missing the consola-
tion of the dirge, the gifts, andthe encomium! Adrastus indeed seems to
have felt this painfully. ‘I miss”, he said a¢# Zhebes, when the corpses
of the seven pyres were complete, “‘I miss the eye of mine army, my
prophet and warrior in one”*. But, explains Pindar in the other passage,

1 Ol. vi. 153 Nem. 1X. 22. The 4 Ol. v1.16. The seven pyres are those

second passage (Ἰσμηνοῦ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὄχθαισι
γλυκὺν νόστον ἐρυσσάμενοι λευκανθέα σώ-
par’ ἐπίαναν καπνόν) is not absolutely
inconsistent with the supposition that the
burial took place elsewhere, though no
one could fail to understand it in the
opposite sense. The first is fully, and
indeed superfluously, explicit about the
place of the ceremony,—elwev [“Adpacros]
ἐν Θήβαισι τοιοῦτόν τι ἔπος.

2 Eur. Bacch. 333.

3 See vv. 558—612 of this play.

of the Argive dead, leaders and others, one
for each division. A scholium on this pas-
Sage says, and no doubt truly, that the
words of Adrastus are partly taken from
the cyclic Zhebais (see on v. 556 of this
play). It does not however say that
Pindar had ancient authority for the cir-
cumstances under which they were spoken.
I have given above what I now think the
true version of the words ἑπτὰ πυρᾶν
νεκρῶν τελεσθέντων. The question is not
here material.

Ζ2

XXviii INTRODUCTION.
Amphiaraus really gained something ; for he escaped, although he fled,
the disgrace that it would have been to his courage as a warrior, if his

back had been actually smitten by the pursuer’s spear !

ἑπτὰ γὰρ δαίσαντο πυραὶ veoyvious φῶτας" ὁ δ᾽ ᾿Αμφιάρῃ σχίσσεν
κεραυνῷ παμβίᾳ

Ζεὺς τὰν βαθύστερνον χθόνα, κρύψεν δ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ἵπποις,

δουρὶ Περικλυμένου πρὶν νῶτα τυπέντα μαχατὰν

θυμὸν αἰσχυνθῆμεν. ἐν γὰρ δαιμονίοισι φόβοις φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδες

θεῶν".

The verses are fine: but critics unfavourable to Thebes must have
smiled at the lame result of a conflict between patriotism and piety.

In this matter also the story of Aeschylus is thoroughly antique.
The emphasis laid by Amphiaraus on the fact that Ae, in the event of
defeat, may hope for burial (v. 574) loses its meaning if we do not
realize that this from the ‘heroic’ point of view is an exceptional
privilege. And the ancient moral of Amphiaraus’ fate is fully displayed
in the speech of Eteocles respecting him. Eteocles blindly supposes
that the virtuous, acting with the wicked, must be confounded in their
doom. But the justice of heaven was not to be thus misled. The
Euripidean sequel is not denied by the Aeschylean story, which requires
only that the Argives should have risked the loss of burial, not neces-
sarily that they should have incurred it. But it is entirely ignored,
and is in fact inconsistent with the spirit of the play though not with the
letter. The Pindaric sequel contradicts the letter, and must be regarded
for the present purpose as false. The matter is important not only
to the case of Amphiaraus, but also to the second subject of the play,
the burial of Polynices. It is doubtful whether this subject belonged
to the ancient epics at all, but it is treated by Aeschylus (if we over-
look a formal anachronism’) entirely in the spirit of the heroic age.
In the Antigone of Sophocles it is by the order of a despot that burial
is refused to Polynices; his subjects comply, but pointedly decline

1 Nem. IX. 24. Pindar, we may no-
tice, knows nothing of the later theory
that Amphiaraus ‘was made immortal ’,
any more than Oedipus was ‘made im-
mortal’ by his mysterious disappearance
in Sophocles’ Coloneus. Amphiaraus ex-
isted after death as any other ψυχή which
had been provided with the means of
existence by the burial of the body, and
of course ‘retained his prophetic powers.

The notion of his immortality belongs to
an age when changes of manners had
made the true bearing of the ancient
story unintelligible. Euripides passes the
matter over with careless ambiguity: xat
μὴν τὸν Οἰκλέους ye γενναῖον τόκον θεοὶ
ζῶντ᾽ ἀναρπάσαντες ἐς μυχοὺς χθονὸς αὐτοῖς
τεθρίπποις εὐλογοῦσιν ἐμφανῶς. (Suppl.
925)-.
2 See on v. 997.

INTRODUCTION. xxix

to approve or to concur’. In Aeschylus the proclamation is issued
by those claiming to represent the mass of the citizens, and it is inti-
mated that they are fully supported by public feeling’. The womanly
revolt of Antigone divides the opmion only of women. Yet the
reasoning of Creon in the Antigone and of the council here is precisely
the same :—Polynices has behaved as an enemy; therefore let him
be treated as such. This argument seems unsatisfactory in ‘Thebes’ ;
it is found conclusive in the Cadmea. The difference arises on the
tacit premiss that burial may properly be refused to an enemy.

The Cadmean legend of Adrastus’ expedition was answered by an
Argive legend of reprisal ; according to which the heroes of ‘the next
generation’ avenged their fathers, and one of these ἐπίγονοι, Thersander,
the son of Polynices by an Argive princess, was placed on the throne of
Thebes. There existed in antiquity a play entitled ’Eriyovor attributed
to Aeschylus. The few lines of it which survive’ are insufficient to
show what was the story of it, or even whether it was genuine*. It
is not likely to have had any direct connexion with this play, which,
Cadmean in this as in other respects, ignores the whole story, and
supposes the house of Laius to be extinguished by the death of the
last male heirs’.

4. Ihe Occasion of the Curse of Oedipus.

A few words must be added on a part of the story extremely ob-
scure, but fortunately of little importance to this play,—the exact
circumstances under which the curse of Oedipus was pronounced. All
that we know of it is contained in vv. 765—775, which relate that, on
the discovery of the truth respecting his marriage,

ἐπ᾿ adye δυσφορῶν
μαινομένᾳ καρδίᾳ
δίδυμα κακ᾽ ἐτέλεσεν"
πατροφόνῳ χερὶ τῶν

1 Soph. Ant. 101-222 and passin.

3 vv. 995, 1017, 1033--1042, 1053,
1058, 1061—2.

2 Aesch. fragg. (Dindorf) 52, 53, 54.

4 In drawing conclusions from the an-
cient citations of lost tragedies we must
not lose sight of the possibility of forgery,
which was certainly practised, and pro-

bably to a large extent. It would be easy
to arrange a set of fragments from the
Rhesus (called ‘of Euripides’) which would
support the ascription of it to any one of
the three great tragedians. Having the
whole play, we see that it was not written
by any of them.
5 vv. 885 —889 and note.

XX" INTRODUCTION.

κρείσσω τέκνων δ᾽ amr ὀμμάτων ἐπλάγχθη. T
τέκνοις δ᾽ apaias

ἐφῆκεν ἐπικότους τροφὰς,

αἰαῖ, πικρογλώσσους ἀράς,

769.

καί σφε σιδαρονόμῳ
διὰ χερί ποτε λαχεῖν
κτήματα.

It happens that this is one of the few passages in the play which are
seriously injured. It is evident that in v. 769 there is grave error, and
that in vv. 770—772 there is some error more or less’: and the story
itself being unknown, restoration is impossible. But it is clear (and
this is the chief matter) that it was the madness of Oedipus, rather than
any adequate offence of his sons, which brought about the curse. It
was part of the fatality of the house of Laius that terrible issues should
follow from inadequate and even ‘trivial causes. And it also seems
clear that the indignation of the father was connected with the manner in
which he was fed or maintained (τροφή, τροφαῦ. Beyond this we

cannot go with certainty. I have added below what seems to me the

most probable conjecture’.

1 As to the metrical question, see the
Appendix on the metres. In my opinion
v. 770 is not impeachable on this ground.

2 The passages bearing on this ques-
tion are given by Grote, following Leutsch,
in the History of Greece, Part 1. chap.
xiv. before cited. The scholiast on Soph.
Oed. Col. 1378 says that the account of
Aeschylus in the Septem resembled the
account of the Zhebais, rd δὲ παραπλήσια
τῷ ἑποποιῷ καὶ Αἰσχύλος ἐν τοῖς "Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ
Θήβας. The ΖΑεδαΐς represented Oedipus
as having cursed his sons ὅτι αὐτῷ παρέθη-
Kay ἐκπώματα ἃ ἀπηγορεύκει (Athenaeus
xii. p. 465). He had forbidden that he
should be served with the silver table
and golden cup belonging to his fathers;
but Polynices one day broke through this
interdict. When the old king perceived
this, in his madness he imprecated terrible
curses on his sons, which he repeated on
another occasion, on which they had sent
to him the buttock of the victim from the
altar instead of the shoulder. The import
of this last act is obscure: but it will be

seen that according to the 7hedbais Poly-
nices suffered from excess of reverent duty
towards one whose enfeebled mind mis-
took what was done. This is in accord-
ance with what else we know of that
poem. It was an Argive story, con-
cluding (in the Zpégonz) with the restora-
tion of Polynices’ Argive heir to the
throne of his fathers, and would naturally
represent Polynices’ conduct in a favour-
able light. The story followed by Aeschy-
lus seems to have been, as the scholiast
Says, ‘similar’ but not the same. We
must not overlook καί in v. 773, ‘that
they Akewise might etc.’, which implies
that there was some analogy between the
curse and the cause of it. Now: σιδηρο-
νόμος χείρ may mean not only ‘a hand
which divides with iron ’ but equally well
‘a hand which uses iron vessels’ for meat
and drink ; see Zex. s.v. νέμω, and cf.
χρυσονόμος in Pers. 80 (so the MS., and as
I think rightly). Probably therefore ac-
cording to Aeschylus’ story Oedipus, as a
parricide, was for some ritual reason nof

wr

INTRODUCTION. χχχὶ

5. Zhe Source of the Aeschylean Story.

| We see then that the play of Aeschylus presents the story of Adrastus’
expedition in an extremely ancient form. From what literary source
this story was immediately derived we cannot say. Of the epic poems
which dealt with the subject scarcely anything is preserved, except
fragments’ of the latest survivor, the Cyclic Z/ebais, just sufficient to
show that it was not the oldest form of the legend, and that it was not
the main authority of Aeschylus. The Zzhebais and the Lpigont,
which appear to have been parts of one poem, or at all events har-
monious with each other, were written “more in honour of Argos than
of Thebes, as the first line betokens—‘Apyos ἄειδε, θεὰ, πολυδίψιον ἔνθεν
dvaxtes—”’. A poem written in praise of Argos, yet narrating in its
first part the defeat of a great Argive enterprise, declares itself by its
very form to be in the nature of an answer. The legend of Aeschylus
is not in the least Argive, nor properly speaking Theban either, but
Cadmean, and is descended, through what line we do not know, from
the primitive epic which the story of the Zhebais presumes, and of
which vague traces remain in the attribution of works on the subject to

served with the golden vessels of his
fathers, but with iron instead, and sud-
denly forgetting the reason prayed some-
what to this effect : ὡς ὑμεῖς τὴν ἐμὴν χεῖρα
EGere σιδηρονόμον, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς σιδηρο-
νόμῳ χειρὶ διαλάχοιτε τὰ κτήματα. This
being so, it is not clear that the corrupt
verse κρείσσω τέκνων δ᾽ dx’ ὁμμάτων
ἐπλάγχθη referred to the self-blinding of
Oedipus at all. This incident did not
apparently belong to the epic narrative:
and cannot now be traced above Sopho-
cles: it is only a conjecture that it was
Aeschylus and not Sophocles himself
who invented it; and it has nothing to do
with the origin of the curse. The attempts
to find in κρείσσω τέκνων an epithet suit-
able for ὀμμάτων have not been successful
---κρεισσοτέκνων m, κρεισσοτέχνων Donald-
son (these words are not correctly formed),
xupooréxy wy Hermann, φρισσοτέκνων Stan-
ley : and as far as the letters go, πωμάτων
(constantly written πομάτων) is at least as
probable as ὀμμάτων, for it explains the
origin of dw’. I incline therefore to read

thus—rarpopovy χερὶ τῶν χρυσοτέχνων
πωμάτων ἐπλάγχθη" τέκνοις δ᾽ dpalas ἐφῆ-
κεν ἐπίκοτος τροφᾶς, αἰαῖ, πικρογλώσσους
ἄρας, καί σῴε σιδαρονόμῳ διὰ χερί ποτε
λαχεῖν κτήματα: ‘because his hand had
slain his father (cassa/ dative), he was
kept from that father’s vessels of wrought
gold; and angered that he was maintained
as one under a curse he let fall upon his
children alas ! a curse of bitter meaning,
that they too σιδαρονόμῳ χερὶ might
divide his wealth.’ Note the correspond-
ence of xepl...xepl, and observe ἐκπώματα
in Athenaeus above quoted. The δίδυμα
κακά of uv. 767 then means the twofold
curse itself. Thus the conduct of the
sons would be neither praiseworthy nor
blameable, and the whole incident has
that character of mere fatality which is the
essence of the story in its primitive (and
Aeschylean) shape. Of course all this is
mere guess-work, but to that we are neces-
sarily reduced.

1 See the passage of Grote above cited
and the authorities there given.

ΧΧΧΙΪ INTRODUCTION.

Hesiod. It is probable, not to say certain, that the story of the
Cadmea, like the story of Ilium, was extant from early times in many
and fluctuating forms, of which the Zhebais owed its prevalence and
longer preservation to its superior literary merit. It must however be
considered fortunate that Aeschylus followed older versions, for we
thus obtain one true view of a legend at least as ancient as those of
Homer and not less curious. .In the later dramatists the study of
variety and the changes of artistic motive have half obliterated the
original lines. The stories of the Antigone, of the Oedipus Tyrannus
and the Oedipus Coloneus, of the Phoenissae and the Supplices of Euripides,
are stories of no time that ever was, ancient legends remodelled to suit
the particular effect desired by the playwright. The story of Aeschylus
may be, and in the outlines probably is, the genuine epic legend of the
Cadmean war. And whatever the dramatic excellences of the other
versions, this one is not without merits peculiar to itself.

6. Zhe ‘ Oedipodean Trilogy’.

According to the prefatory note to this play in the Medicean s.’, it
was exhibited in the year 467 B.c. as one of four plays—the Lazus,
Oedipus, Seven against Thebes, and Sphinx (satyric play): and Aeschylus
was victorious over the other competitors in the tragic contest. From
each of the plays not extant a few words or verses are cited by ancient
writers’, Those from the Zaius and the Oedipus indicate, like the
allusions in this play, a general resemblance to the story of Sophocles.

It will be observed that this notice, assuming it to be trustworthy,
neither states nor implies that the Latus, Oedipus and Seven against
Thebes formed a ‘trilogy’ in the sense in which that word may be
applied to the Orestea, a single dramatic work complete in three parts.
The ‘didascaliae’ or theatrical records, upon which these notices de-
pend, were concerned only with the date and circumstances of the
exhibition, and the plays grouped together are often without any in-
ternal connexion, This is of some importance, for the extant Seven
against Thebes is certainly not the conclusion of a work intended to be
complete in itself, On the contrary, the last scene is plainly con-
structed with a view to further development in a play resembling the
Antigone of Sophocles’, But we have no reason to infer from this,

1 See p. xl. such a play is already provided in the
3 See Aesch. /ragg. 119, 120, 171, 233, προπομτοί (Ὁ. 1061) who accompany An-
234, 235 (Dindorf). tigone. A play entitled Προπομποί is

8 We may even say that the Chorus of | mentioned in the list appended to the

we

INTRODUCTION. Xxxili
that our play is not the original work but a remodelled version of it,
which for reasons given in the following section seems in the highest
degree improbable.

It is also worth notice that the τς by which plays were known
in antiquity were not even attributed to the authors themselves. Thus,
to go no further than this ‘tetralogy’, Athenaeus is careful to speak
not of ‘Zhe Sphinx’, but of ‘the play inscribed Zhe Sphinx’’. If
Aeschylus gave our play any title at all (which we have no reason to
suppose) it was not, we may venture to say, Zhe Seven against Thebes.
This title, though not unnatural as a popular designation, combines as
much inaccuracy as the space permits. It is erroneous in the name Zheles,
and misleading in the expression Zhe Seven. It would have suited well
enough a play laid on the lines indicated by Sophocles in the Ocdipus
Coloneus or by Euripides in the Sufp/ices, and marks, like those plays
and the Phoenissae, the modification introduced into the story after and
as an indirect consequence of the work of Aeschylus.

η. The Text.

It is a gaining opinion that the Codex Laurentianus or Mediceus, a
ms. of the roth or r1th century, is the sole independent authority for
the text of Aeschylus*. It contains the whole of this play. It was
collated for Wecklein’s edition (Berlin, 1885) by Vitelli, and upon that
edition, with occasional references to earlier collations in cases of doubt,
the text of this is based. As it is desirable to distinguish as clearly as
possible the original readings of the AMediceus from all others, those

Mediceus, and may perhaps have been the
continuation. Nothing seems to remain
of it but the word δίπολοι-- διπλαῖ (Aesch.
Jrag. 207 Dindorf).

1 Athenaeus 15 p. 674 D (Aesch. frag.
233 Dindorf) ἐν τῇ ἐπιγραφομένῃ ΣΦιγγί.

2 The variations from it in the other
Mss. are for the most part either changes
for the worse—a class which more careful
consideration is continually enlarging—or
such small corrections of spelling etc. as
any one might easily suggest to himself.
There are a few, such as és oxoway or ἐς
σκοπίαν for és ἀκρόπολιν in Ὁ. 226, which
have the appearance of an independent ori-
gin: and of course the contrary cannot be

proved, even if we take it as certain that
M is the archetype of all our Mss.; fora
scribe copying directly or indirectly from
M might introduce genuine readings from
tradition or other sources. But even in
these cases there is the equally probable
alternative that they are conjectures rather
more happy or more bold than usual. To
this opinion, that of Burges, Cobet, and
Dindorf, Wecklein now accedes. In
adopting it as a hypothesis we shall at
least do no harm ; for the Mediceus, if not
the sole authority, is certainly important
enough to deserve a separate considera-
tion.

| XXxiv INTRODUCTION.

readings, when they differ from the text here adopted, are given in
all cases immediately below. The corrections of the Mediceus, whether
made in the s. itself or otherwise, are noticed where necessary in the
explanatory notes. Wecklein’s notations m and m' designate respectively
(1) the first ‘corrector’ of the Afediceus and writer of most of the scholia
added to the ms., identified by some with the writer of the Ms. itself; (2)
two later hands, “one Byzantine, the other of the 14th century”, which
have made further changes and added other scholia. The variations,
that is to say the errors or the conjectures, of the later copies are con-
veniently designated by Wecklein either as recc., where the variation
appears in more than one copy, or as rec. when it appears only in one.
Where the error of the AMediceus is trivial, I have sometimes simply.
mentioned the original reading without further remark. In these cases
it is to be assumed that the correction is made either on the Ms.
itself or in one of the later copies. A few minute peculiarities have
been ignored, particularly if they are only additional instances of an
established type, for instance, the omission of the ofa ‘adscript’ or the
confusion of ηι and εἰ in verbal inflexions. On these points the MS. 15
too irregular to be of any authority, and its reading in any particular
place scarcely affects the critical question. Further the apparatus
criticus of Wecklein’s edition, with the invaluable Appendix, is my
testimony for the original authorship of particular corrections. To
this, the foundation of the subject, I have added nothing ; and I would
repeat here those acknowledgments to my predecessors and particularly
to Dr Wecklein, which I have already expressed in the preface. The
numbering of the lines, both in the text and in the references to other
plays of Aeschylus, is that of Wecklein, which I shall follow if I should
be able, as I hope, to continue this commentary.

My own few corrections are chiefly in the division of the letters into
words, and in the accentuation. It is needless to say that these in any
Greek Ms., if the author dates from the time of uncial writing, are strictly
part of the commentary, not of the text. They cannot possibly re-
present anything of greater authority than the opinion of some ancient
editor, and must no more be accepted without consideration than the
explanation of a scholium. Whether we should read ἐκτὸς or éxros in
VU. 251, ἐπ᾽ ἄνδρας or ἐπανδρὰς in v. 269 are questions not of Ms. autho-
rity, but of interpretation.

In considering the scho/ia, it is important not to forget the necessity
of excessively brief expression, imposed upon the writers of them by
mere want of space. The first and often the greatest difficulty of
dealing with a scholium, even when correctly copied, is to find out what

~w

INTRODUCTION. XXXV

it can possibly have meant. We must not therefore be hasty in con-
cluding, because the application of a note is not at once obvious, either
that it refers to a different text, or that it is of no value as an exposition
of that which we have. Several times it has occurred to me, after
arriving with some labour at a particular view, to find it expressed
in half a dozen words, which I had perhaps twenty times read and
dismissed as unintelligible or irrelevant. See for examples τοῦ. 263—
265 and wy. 406—408. Parts of the scholia descend from those whose
material for interpreting Aeschylus exceeded ours at least as much as
our critical methods may be supposed to surpass theirs. Of course
there are also cases in which the scholium does prove a different reading.
Some have been previously pointed out (for example v. 759); one or
two (as vv. 254, 1002) have not, I think, been noticed before.

In connection with the authority of the Ms. there are two points
requiring special mention, both affecting the text of Aeschylus in
general, as well as this play in particular.

In the lyrical parts of Aeschylus I believe the text to be in general
much less corrupt than is often supposed, and on the whole not much
less correct than it is rightly held to be in the dialogue. Toa very
large extent the supposed proof of deep corruption rests on the assump-
tion that in the rhythmic correspondence of sfrophe and antistrophe
there was always a correspondence of syllables and quantities. This
proposition can by no means be assumed a priori; it cannot be
assumed to be true to the same extent of all poets, or of the same poet
Writing at different times; it is known not to be absolutely true; the
precise limits of it have never been properly investigated: but it has
been freely used as a principle of criticism wherever it appears to be
easy of application. Very many passages have been altered for no
reason but that they contradict the supposed rule; many more have
never been seriously interpreted at all, because it is assumed that
they cannot be correct. If the rule of sy//abic correspondence is not
to prove itself, the first necessity for a sound conclusion about it is
plainly a text in which xo correction, however small, shall be admitted
merely on the ground of strophic correspondence. Verses corresponding in
rhythm can of course very often be turned without difficulty into verses
corresponding syllable by syllable. Whether they were originally such
can be decided only by considering the total number of the exceptions,
the number of the exceptions not easily corrigible, and, above all, by as-
certaining whether the exceptions could or could not, in general, be detected as
errors without reference to the supposed metrical rule. In many parts
of Aeschylus and Euripides, to support the rule in anything like its full

XXXVI INTRODUCTION.

extent, we must suppose that the copyists suddenly developed in the
lyrics a new sort of perversity, and incessantly made errors which, while
destroying the original exactness of metre, left the sense perfect and the
rhythm correspondent. This may be true, but it is not prima facie
probable. For clearness’ sake therefore I have treated strophic cor-
respondence as a matter apart. In the lyrical parts I have in the first
instance given and interpreted either the Ms. text or such proposed
corrections of it as appear probable if the metre be supposed unknown,
reserving for an Appendix the question what conclusions may be drawn
from this text as to the kind of correspondence between s/rophe and
antistrophe which was used in this play.

The second point, relating to this play more particularly, is the
question whether, in the dialogue of Eteocles and the Spy concerning
the seven champions (vv. 362—663), the answering speeches were
originally of exactly equal length, as has been supposed by W. Dindorf
(editor of the Poctae Scenict Graect) and some others. This question
is of no small importance to the authority of our text of Aeschylus.
The lengths of the speeches in the ms. are as follows; Pair i: 22
lines = 20, li: 15 =15, ill: I5 =9, IV: 15 =20, V: 24=13, Vi: 29=29,
vii: 22=24. A few of these lines are shown by very strong evidence,
external and internal, to have been interpolated for assignable reasons,
Vis. VV. 444, 534—536, 566, and 663. Omitting these the numbers will
be—i: 22=20, li: 15 =15, 11: §4=9,iV: 15 = 20, Vv: 21 =13, vi: 28=29,
vii: 22=23'. Either way there is some regularity, yet much irregu-
larity also,—a natural and artistic way of treating a series of speeches
thus related. But if it were probable that the third, fourth, and fifth
pairs (not to say the first and seventh) were originally exact pairs, but
have been reduced to their present form by excisions or additions for
which no apparent reason can be assigned, what confidence could be
placed in any part of a text so arbitrarily mutilated? In my opinion
however there is no reason to think that these speeches ever were equal.
The supposed traces of injury in the present text arise from misunder-
standings, and disappear upon explanation. The details will be found
in the notes.

Still less can we admit the likelihood that this play in its present
form is but a remodelling of the original work*. Those who have main-

1 The question is not affected if we pair will be. |
include among the interpolations the 3 References to the various suggestions
doubtful case of v. 433, and the still more οὗ this kind which have been made will
doubtful case of v. 588. The second pair be found in the Appendix to Wecklein’s
will then not be exactly equal, the sixth edition already cited.

ὙΠ

INTRODUCTION. XXXVii

tained this view can hardly have observed the many striking and
harmonious peculiarities by which the play is distinguished from all
extant or now traceable works on the subject. It would have required
a skill, learning, and patience altogether incredible, to prevent a
reconstructor from betraying himself instantly by touches inconsistent
with the original and derived from the famous legends of Homer,
Pindar, Sophocles, Euripides and others. To mention but one such
danger—he would have put in the name of Zhedes, or he would have
been a person such as I believe is not to be found in the whole history
of spurious literature.

8. General Remarks.

The Seven against Thebes was in antiquity one of the most
admired and oftenest cited of all tragedies. To its popularity among

the contemporaries and immediate successors of the poet, besides the '

famous reference of Aristophanes’, Euripides has left a testimony which
far outweighs his objection to a certain part of the plot. In the most
brilliant and celebrated of all his own plays, desiring to enhance a retort

a ὦ

by a mock-tragic effect, he has made his Jason actually quote a verse
from the Seven against Thebes*, In modern times since the revival.

of learning the play has been much less highly esteemed. In the main
I believe that this is due to the misconceptions, small in themselves but
not small in their effects, which have been considered in the previous
remark. The plot of the first part, for growth of interest up to the
climax, has only one superior in ancient literature, the plot of the
Ocdipus Tyrannus. The dialogue which immediately precedes the
climax is indispensable to the effect; and if there is something a little
artificial in the device by which the necessary time is obtained, this
objection is of the reading-room rather than of the theatre. In the
theatre, when the Spy and Eteocles meet together upon the stage and the
Spy begins his report, an audience would assuredly have little occasion to
ask, with Euripides*, whether, although the attack is delayed by the
interference of Amphiaraus, there is quite time enough to tell over the
champions one by one instead of all together.

There is however one difficulty which the poet has perhaps not
quite surmounted. The first part of the play is one of the most rapid
pieces of action ever put upon the stage. The natural duration of the

1 Ran. 1022.
2 See note on v. 61. 8 Phoen. 749.

|

~~

XXxXvViil INTRODUCTION.

events represented barely gives time enough for the representation:
Every entrance and every exit’is made ‘in haste’, and the whole scene
is one of hurry and wild confusion. It cannot be denied, I think, that
the magnificent verse of Aeschylean dialogue, of which this play ex-
hibits on the whole the most severe and perfect form, is not altogether
the most convenient for a scene of this kind. The iambic verse of
Attic tragedy, if it has a defect as a dramatic instrument, is defective
on the side of speed. The whole of Euripides’ method as an artist
might be not ill described as an effort to quicken the pace—in which
indeed his success was so great, that on turning from a passage of the
Septem to a passage of the AZedea it 15 difficult to believe that the rules
of the metre are exactly the same. Yet Euripides was, not without
reason, still dissatisfied, and continued to strain the instrument till he
may almost be said to have broken it. Probably Aeschylus himself
was scarcely aware of the objection. His stately diction seems to have
been so natural to him, that he did not feel it to be incongruous with
the utmost rapidity of movement or agitation of feeling. Nor indeed
can we desire that it had been otherwise. If Aeschylus could have
written lighter verse, he might doubtless well have done so in some
parts of the Seven against Thebes. We should have obtained a Phoenissae
with a more solemn and significant plot ; and we should have lost such
lines as these :-—

σιδηρόφρων yap θυμὸς ἀνδρείᾳ φλέγων
ἔπνει λεόντων ὡς “Apy δεδορκότων.

|

AIZXYAOY ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBA2,

TIIO@ETIZ TON EDTA ἘΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ.

Ἡ μὲν σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματος ἐν Θήβαις ὑπόκειται, ὁ δὲ χορὸς ἐκ Θηβαίων
ἐστὶ παρθένων, ἣ δὲ ὑπόθεσις στρατιὰ ᾿Αργείων πολιορκοῦσα Θηβαίους,
τοὺς καὶ νικήσαντας, καὶ θάνατος "EreoxAéovs καὶ Πολυνείκους. ἐδιδάχθη
ἐπὶ Θεαγένους ὀλυμπιάδι οη. ἐνίκα Λαΐῳ, Οἰδίποδι, Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας,
Σφιγγὶ σατυρικῇ.ς B ᾿Αριστίων Περσεῖ, Ταντάλῳ, Παλαισταῖς σατυρικοῖς
τοῖς Πρατίνου πατρός. Ὑ Πολνφράσμων Λυκουργείᾳ τετραλογίᾳ.

ΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΔΡΑΜΑΤΟΣ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΑ.

ETEOKAHS.

ATTEAOS ΚΑΤΑΣΚΟΠΟΣ.
ΧΟΡΟΣ TAP@OENON.
ANTITONH.

ISMHNH.

KHPY#.

AISXYAOY ETTTA ETT! OHBA2.

ETEOKAH2.

Κάδμου πολῖται, χρὴ λέγειν τὰ καίρια.

ὅστις φυλάσσει πρᾶγος ἐν πρύμνῃ πόλεως

¥ < ι΄’ an of ‘

oland νωμῶν, βλέφαρα μὴ κοιμῶν ὕπνῳ.

εἰ μὲν γὰρ εὖ πράξαιμεν, αἰτία θεοῦ"

εἰ δ᾽ αὖθ᾽, ὃ μὴ γένοιτο, συμφορὰ τύχοι, 5

1. For the situation see Introduction.

χρὴ λέγειν τὰ καίρια. This expression,
signifying ‘to speak to the point’, is a
proverbial commonplace, occurring several
times in the tragedians; see if. v. 606,
Eur. J~h. A. 829 καλῶς ἔλεξας ἐν
βραχεῖ τὰ καίρια, Soph. O. C. 808 χωρὶς
τό τ᾽ εἰπεῖν πολλὰ καὶ τὰ (or τὸ) καίρια,
Ant, 724 εἴ τι καίριον λέγει, etc. Used
here as apreface it marks that the occasion
of the address is urgent, and serves to com-
mand attention. On the stop after καίρια
See next note.

a—3. In this sentence, the principal
clause and the subordinate having the
same verb φυλάσσειν, it is omitted in
principal clause, and is to be supplied
from the other in the form required—
φυλασσέτω. (See for ellipses of this kind
Kihner, Greek Grammar, Vol. 11. p.
1079). Whoso watcheth the fortunes of a
state, guiding the tiller at her helm, let him
do zt with never slumbering eye. Under
the form of this general maxim the
speaker implies that he- has for his own

73: Αι,

part exercised the vigilance which his
place demands, as he now calls upon the
citizens to do their part; (see the
emphatic ὑμᾶς in v..10). The hour (it
appears to be scarcely yet light, vv. 29,
66) lends significance to the figure.—This
sentence is commonly joined with z. 1, so
as to make ὅστις... ὕπνῳ a single clause
without ellipse and χρὴ the principal
verb. To this there are two fatal
objections: (1) the case of κοιμῶν; for
which Heimsoeth reads κοιμῶνθ᾽ (κοι-
μῶντα), perceiving that from the sense of
βλέφαρα.. ὕπνῳ these words must describe
the duty of a ruler, not a quality of a
ruler as such; and (2) the want of
connexion between χρὴ λέγειν τὰ καίρια
and the following figure ; λέγειν τὰ καίρια
is the business of every one, not of a
statesman in particular, still less of a
sleepless pilot.—Here and throughout
this speech we may note the alliteration,
especially on the letters r and ¢. So
free a use of it is very rare in Greek
verse, |

2 AIZXYAOY

᾿Ετεοκλέης ἂν els πολὺς κατὰ πτόλιν
ὑμνοῖθ' ὑπ’ ἀστῶν φροιμίοις πολυρρόθοις
οἰμώγμασίν θ᾽, ὧν Ζεὺς ἀλεξητήριος
ἐπώνυμος γένοιτο Kadpelov πόλει.

ὑμᾶς δὲ χρὴ νῦν, καὶ τὸν ἐλλείποντ᾽ ἔτι

IO

ἥβης axpalas, καὶ τὸν ἔξηβον χρόνῳ
βλάστημον ἀλδαίνοντα σώματος πολύν,
ὥραν ἔχων θ᾽ ἕκαστος ὥς τις συμπρεπής,
πόλει τ᾽ ἀρήγειν καὶ θεών ἐγχωρίων

6. ἑτεοκλῆς---πολὺς above the line.
to ὥστι-ὠοῶ͵ὀὄυμπρεπές.

6. Zhen would ‘Eteocles’ be the onecry
repeated and multiplied by the townsfolk
up and down with stormy threatenings.
*Ereoxdéns here is rather the name
than the man; πολύς is predicative and
joined in sense with ὑμνοῖτο. φροιμίοις,
literally prefudes, the murmurs fore-
running the outbreak of actual violence.

8. ὧν... πόλει: from which may Zeus
Defender for his name’s sake defend the
Cadmean town: ὧν is governed by
ἐπώνυμος, or more properly speaking by
ἀλεξητήριος implied in ἑπώνυμος, ‘like his
name’, ‘that which his name implies’.
(Paley).

11. ἔξηβον χρόνῳ together, that hath
aged beyond vigour, Cy. Bey. E\.

12. βλάστημον (sz) M, and also in
Supp. 317, the other example of the word,
but of course wrongly. If the word were
a substantive in -μος, it would be oxytone,
βλαστημόν. But it is very doubtful
whether there was any such word, for as
Hermann pointed out the form would
rather be βλαστησμός (cf. πατησμός, ὀρχησ-
p4s), which he would accordingly read.
In Supp. 1.c. βλαστιμὸν has been suggested.
Here, apart from the form, βλαστημὸς
or βλαστησμὸς σώματος has difficulties of
sense, and there is much more probability
in Hermann’s alternative suggestion, that
the true accentuation is βλαστήμον, 4.¢.
βλαστήμονα from the adjective βλαστήμων.
But in that case πολύν is erroneous and

13. Spave ---ἔχωνθ᾽ corr. to Exovd’—dores

must have replaced a substantive. This
suspicion is strengthened by the fact that
the line does not intelligibly describe
any mark of age, which is nevertheless
clearly the intention. Thus for example
σπορᾶν, though not defensible as a resto-
ration, would give excellent sense, taking
ἐξήβον χρόνῳ as a predicate agreeing with
βλαστήμονα cxopay—him whose age hath
outgrown the bearing of the body's pro-
creative sted. Probably the true word is
lost beyond recovery.

13. %.¢ τόν τε ὥραν ἔχοντα, ws ἕκα-
στός τις, ὥραν ἔχων, συμπρεκής ἐστι: and
those of vigorous age, according as the
vigour of each fits him. ὁ ὥραν ἔχων is
ὁ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ, the military age between the
two before mentioned. All such are in
different degrees fit for fighting, and
each is to use his capacity to the utmost.
ὥραν ἔχων re (not dpay 7’ ἔχων), because
Spay ἔχων is in grammar a qualifying
clause to συμπρεπής ἐστι, the accusative
to which the re belongs being supplied
from it by a common ellipse.— The copula
was accidentally written twice, in the
usual place and in that here required.
Otherwise the MS. as it stood before
alteration is correct. The readings ὥραν
ἔχονθ᾽ ἕκαστον and ὥραν (séc) ἔχονθ᾽ ἕκα-
στον, explained in the Scholia, appear to
be mistaken corrections. ὡς Sere.

14—16. ἀρήγειν πόλει καὶ βωμοῖς,
ὥστε τιμὰς τῶν βωμῶν μὴ ἐξαλ. τέκνοις

Ss yer

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAS. 3

βωμοῖσι, τιμὰς μὴ ᾿ξαλειφθῆναί ποτε 15
τέκνοις Te γῇ τε μητρί, φιλτάτῃ τροφῷ᾽

ἢ γὰρ νέους Eprrovras εὐμενεῖ πέδῳ,

ἅπαντα πανδοκοῦσα παιδείας ὄτλον,

ἐθρέψατ᾽ οἰκιστῆρας ἀσπιδηφόρους

πιστούς, ὅπως γένοισθε πρὸς χρέος τόδε. 20᾽

τε γῇ τε μητρί That so the due rites
of the children and their mother-land
may never be done away. τέκνοις and
ἢ are datives of “interest” constructed
with ἐξαλειφθῆναι, the τιμαί being
paid by and for the γῇ as well as the
inhabitants; see Soph. O. C. 1007 γῆ
θεοὺς ἐπίσταται τιμαῖς σεβίζειν. By τέκνα
we may understand either τέκνα πόλεως
(cf. Eur. H. F. 7 οἱ Κάδμου πόλιν τεκ-
vovot παίδων παισί), or indifferently réxva
vis, the word being used by antici-
pation as correlative to μήτηρ: in either
case it stands for children of Thebes,
Thebans: see the following lines.—It
seems simpler at first sight to construct
τέκνοις and μητρί with ἀρήγειν, taking
τέκνοις for τέκνοις ὑμῶν : but it will be
seen that ‘children’ in this sense is
irrelevant and injurious to the meaning.
The subject is solely the duty of a citizen
to the state. If the ‘children’ be speci-
fied, why not the wives, the mothers, etc.?
M. Schmidt, who suggests τοκεῦσι, sup-
posing something to be lost between 15
and 16, has perceived this difficulty. The
text however is not incorrect, though
it might be more Clear if for τέκνοις τε
were read réxvotct.

17. ἕρποντας suggests perhaps two
ideas : (1) the growing of plants, cf. Soph.
Jrag. 239 βότρυς ἐπ᾽ ἦμαρ ἕρπει, id. Trach.
547 where πρόσω ἕρπειν is the antithesis
to φθίνειν, and the Latin ‘illic veniunt
felicius uvae’; the earth is said 20
nourish the young growths on kindly
soil, cf. εὐμενῆ γὴν Eur. Phoen. 938; and
(2) by a reminiscence of éprifw etc., the
crawling of infants: κυρίως ἐπὶ παίδων τὸ
ἕρποντας Schol. It is doubtful however
whether the second can have been per-

ceived, for among the very numerous
examples of the word in Attic poetry,
this is the only one which shows any
trace of the meaning “creep”, while
those which exclude it are many.—w&w
instrumental, constructed both with ἔρπον- ἡ
ras and é@péyaro. The comparison of
the children to plants has an important
bearing on Φ. 20.

18. παγνδοκοῦσα, properly “to act as
a hostess”: the verb is intransitive, and
ὄτλον is the inner or quasi-cognate, not
the direct accusative. (Thus the gloss
ἐπιδεχομένη is incorrect.) πανδοκεῖν ὅτ-
λον is to do a troublesome thing (or take
trouble) as a host does it, i.e. with the
cheerfulness of those who expect to be
repaid for their patience. The meta-
phor, though homely, is vividly ex-
pressive, and emphasizes the very point
to be made, that such service must be
paid for when the time comes.—arav@’
ὑπκανδοκοῦσα Hartung.

19. olxurrnpas founders, here of
houses, as commonly of cities. Every
man arriving at the age of independence
becomes in a sense an οἰκιστήρ. οἰκη-
τῆρας recc. ἀσπιδηφόρους expresses the
military, as οἰκιστῆρας the civil side of
manhood; so the young Athenian on
proving his citizenship received a shield
and lance. Both words are proleptic, ex-
pressing the intention and effect of ἐθρέ-
yaro.

20. πιστούς strongly emphasized by
position, whom she trusted or because
trusted: for this sense cf. Antiph. 703. 3,
πολλοὶ τῶν λέγειν δυναμένων πιστοὶ γενό-
μενοι τῷ ψεύδεσθαι. ὅπως x.7.X., literally
in order that ye might be formed (or
produced) against (with a view to) ¢his

[---2

Bowe . AT -

rand Carder

yeo8ev

AIZXYAOY

καὶ viv μὲν ἐς τόδ᾽ ἦμαρ ed ῥέπει θεός"

χρόνον γὰρ ἤδη τόνδε πυργηρουμένοις

καλῶς τὰ πλείω πόλεμος ἐκθέων κυρεῖ.

νῦν δ᾽ ὡς ὁ μάντις φησίν, οἰωνῶν βοτήρ,

ἐν ὠσὶ νωμῶν καὶ φρεσὶν πυρὸς δίχα 25
χρηστηρίους ὄρνιθας ἀψευδεῖ réyvy,—

οὗτος τοιῶνδε δεσπότης μαντευμάτων

λέγει μεγίστην προσβολὴν ᾿Αχαιίδα

νυκτηγορεῖσθαι κἀπιβούλευσιν πόλει.

23. ἐκ θεῶν. 25. φρεσὶ. 547. τοιόνδε corr. to τοιῶνδε. 29. κἀπιβουλεύσειν.

occasion. The difficulty found here seems
to arise from not observing (1) the
exact sense of πιστοὶ, and (2) the relation
of yévowro to the dominant metaphor of
children-plants. The verb is complete
in itself and requires no further predicate.
The land. took the pains of their rearing,
in order that she might have the product.
It is therefore not necessary either to
emend, or to adopt the loose notion of the

Scholia, that πιστοὺς ὅπως γένοισθε stands .

for ὅπως γένοισθε πιστοί.

21. καὶ νῦν marks the return from the
general reflexions on the duty of patriotism
to the present siege. Observe that in 24
νῦν has a slightly different sense, zzz. the
situation of the siege at this moment. μὲν
does not answer to δὲ in 24 (which would
require és τόδε μὲν ἦμαρ) but remains
without antithesis, having nearly the
force of μὲν οὖν, and as to this present.
From these two peculiarities the para-
graph does not balance neatly.

21. εὖ ῥέπει inclines in the scale to
good. θεός, equivalent to τύχη, fortune.
The personal sense of the word is wholly
lost, as the phrase εὖ ῥέπει shows.

23. ἐκ QOeov—apparently a false ac-
centuation for ἐκθέων ; our war in sallies
has been for the most part successful,
ἐκθεῖν is the proper term for sallies of
the beleaguered. ἐκ θεῶν does not suit
the character of the speaker. Contrast
v. 4 and see the Introduction.

25. πυρὸς δίχα, without fire, i.e. not
by the common method of ἔμπυρα or

inspection of parts of the victims offered
in sacrifice. The words qualify χρηστη-
ρίους rather than ywynw»—omens revealed
not by the way of fire. The birds were
of all kinds, Greek and foreign (hence
Boryp in 24), and protected by the blind
prophet Teiresias for the purpose of a
peculiar divination (τέχνη ἡ ἐμή Soph.
Ant. 998) which he drew by the ear,
from their cries and the sound of their
flight (ἐξ ἀκοῆς τὰς πτήσεις διέκρινεν
Schol.). See the picturesque description
in Sophocles. Many of them would pro-
bably not have been suitable as victims.
The special gift was plainly invented to
account for the practice of μαντική by a
blind man: Sophocles, however, adds a
supplementary consultation of ἔμπυρα
through the report ofaservant. Eteocles
here implies (v. 27) that the singular
mystery of the art is a guarantee of truth.
ὄρνιθας, dird-omens ; see Lex. s.v. The
extended sense of the word makes the
expression νωμῶν ὄρνιθας possible—con-
trolling, t.e. dealing with them as a
master.—zupos δίχα is variously criticised
and emended, but on the assumption
that it is to be joined with νωμῶν. φάους
δίχα Ritschl.

28. προσβολὴν κἀπιβούλευσιν πόλει.
The dative is governed by the compounded
prepositions. κἀπιβούλευσιν Dindorf. Nei-
ther ἐπιβουλεύσειν nor ἐπιβουλεύειν suits
the sense, which would require ἐπιβου-
Never Gat (passive).

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. ς

ἀλλ᾽ ἔς τ᾽ ἐπάλξεις καὶ πύλας πυργωμάτων

30

ὁρμᾶσθε πάντες, σοῦσθε σὺν παντευχίᾳ,

πληροῦτε θωρακεῖα, κἀπὶ σέλμασιν

πύργων στάθητε, καὶ πυλῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδοις

μέμνοντες εὖ θαρσεῖτε, μηδ᾽ ἐπηλύδων

tapBeir ἄγαν ὅμιλον. εὖ τελεῖ θεός. 35
σκοποὺς δὲ κἀγὼ καὶ κατοπτῆρας στρατοῦ

ἔπεμψα, τοὺς πέποιθα μὴ ματᾶν ὁδῷ"

καὶ τῶνδ᾽ ἀκούσας οὔ te μὴ AnPOa δόλῳ.

ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΤΑΣΚΟΠΟΣ.
᾿Ετεόκλεες, φέριστε Καδμείων ἄναξ,

ἥκω σαφῆ τἀκεῖθεν ἐκ στρατοῦ φέρων,

40

αὐτὸς κατόπτης δ᾽ εἴμ᾽ ἐγὼ τῶν πραγμάτων.
ἄνδρες γὰρ ὅπτά, θούριοι λοχαγέται,

30. πυργώμάτων.

30. πυργωμάτων, the (towered) walls
as a whole; the gen. depends on both
substantives.

32. σέλμασιν. τοῖς ἐπιβήμασι" Kare-
χρήσατο δέ, Schol. Properly the cross-
benches of ships; here by κατάχρησιξ, or
borrowed application, the wooden plat-
forms resembling them, fixed in the towers.

36. κατοπτῆρας πγ΄.

47. ματᾶν. The sense of this verb
seems to be most nearly expressed
by combining our colloquial terms
bungle and shirk. The root-meaning
is fo be ineffective, and hence to work
ineffectively, In 71. τό. 474 Automedon
cuts loose his fallen horse ‘ without
bungling’, οὐδὲ parnoey; ἐδ. 5. 233
Pandarus fears that horses driven by a
strange hand may ‘shirk’; ἐδ. 23. 510
the victorious charioteer goes instantly
to receive his prize (οὐδὲ μάτησεν) ‘with-
out bungling overit’. The three Aeschy-
lean examples (cf. P. V. 57, Zum. 142),
agree in the sense of tneffecteve work. I
can find no corresponding English word
of tragic dignity ; but we may translate by
do their errand well. δδῷ, instrumental dy
the going, supplies here as generally the

34. εὐθαρσεῖτε.

36. κατοπτῆρα.

want of a verbal noun from ἰέναι,
Compare the compounds μέθοδος, κάθοδος
etc. with the corresponding verbs. The
tense of ματάν is doubtful. The form
may be either present or future (formed
like ἐλᾶν after the manner of verbs with
present in -afw), and may have been used
in both ways (like ἐλᾶν γαμεῖν etc.). P.
V. 57 points to a present, but Aum. 142
decidedly to a future. Here either is
admissible, the future perhaps better.
Schol. μὴ μάτην ὁρμῆσαι, correctly as to
the meaning but the tense is remarkable;
perhaps ὁρμήσειν ?—Hesychius interprets
para by χρονίζει, διατρίβει, meaning
probably hesztate (cf. 7]. 23, 510).

38. οὔτι μὴ : negative future, as οὐ
μή, but always with a certain contempt
and defiance. Strictly perhaps 7: is an
ironical qualification, but this depends on
the true analysis of οὐ μή with subj.,
at present a doubtful problem.

41. Note the position of the conjunc-
tion, justified by the fact that αὐτὸς xaré-
xrns form one idea.

42. γὰρ marks the commencement of
a promised narration. There is no
English equivalent.

ἄλλου. ὁ.

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

ταυροσφαγοῦντες ἐς μέλάνδετον σάκος
καὶ Ouyydvovtes χερσὶ ταυρείου φόνου,

"Apn τ᾽ ᾿Ενυὼ καὶ φιλαίματον Φόβον

45

ες 4 “A f \
ὡρκωμότησαν ἢ πόλει KaTacKapas

θέντες λαπάξειν ἄστυ Kadyuelwv βίᾳ,

A a ) ’ ’ / .

ἢ γῆν θανόντες τήνδε φυράσειν φόνῳ
μνημεῖά θ᾽ αὑτῶν τοῖς τεκοῦσιν εἰς δόμους

πρὸς apy ᾿Αδράστου χερσὶν ἔστεφον, δάκρυ

50

49. αὐτῶν.

43. οὕτως θύοντες ἐπάνω τῶν ἀσπίδων
ἐμαντεύοντο, Schol. Perhaps an omen
was derived from the manner in which
the blood spurted (Paley, citing a similar
μάντευμα in Eur. 272. 1587), but the
chief purpose here was clearly the
symbolism of the bloodshed to which
they devoted themselves (see v. 48).—
μελάνδετον : τὸ μελανισθὲν τῷ αἵματι" ἣ
τὸ ἐκ μελαινῶν βυρσῶν περιβεβλημένον.
Schol. The first explanation, empurpled
or crimsoned (by the blood), is correct.
In interpreting ancient words in ‘Attic
tragedy we must carefully distinguish
three questions, (1) the meaning to the
tragedian, (2) the ¢7we meaning in older
literature, (3) the etymology :—(1) the
meaning cvimsoned is required, and the
reference to the verb δεῖν is excluded, in
Eur. Ovest. 821 μελάνδετον φόνῳ ξίφος.
In Eur. Phoen. 1098 and /r. 374 it
describes a sword in use, so that this
meaning is, as here, highly appropriate,
and 6black-bound scarcely intelligible.
These facts are decisive as to the view of
the Attic poets, and there are Epic uses
by which they might plausibly have
supported it, as 77. 15. 713 πολλὰ δὲ
φάσγανα καλὰ μελάνδετα κωπήεντα | ἄλλα
μὲν ἐκ χειρῶν χάμαδις πέσον, ἄλλα δ᾽ ἀπ᾽
ὥμων | ἀνδρῶν μαρναμένων " ῥέε δ᾽ αἵματι
γαῖα μέλαινα, where (6 last words strongly
suggest it. But (2) from the position of
the epithet it probably did not mean this
to the Epic poet, but referred, as is now
supposed, to the make or material of the
sword, though there is nothing to prove a

derivation from δεῖν or to disprove the
interpretation μελανισθέν. And (3) ety-
mologically, it may not be from δεῖν at
all (what meaning μελαν-δετος could
have is obscure), but is perhaps
only an irregularly formed passive
verbal in -eros (cf. the termination of
dwevxeTos, ἀλάμπετος) and corresponding
to the verb μελαίνω (uedav-yw), in which
the development of a phonetic 5 has been
assisted by metrical convenience. With
this however we are not concerned.—
For the colour μέλας see the Lex. s.v.,
Aesch. Ag. 1510 etc.

45. -If"Apns and "Evuw (feminine) are
to be distinguished, the omission of the
second τε is highly remarkable. Perhaps
however we have here the name of a mas-
culine deity "Ἄρης ᾿Ενυώς (the Homeric
“Apns Evvad\wos) making with ᾿Ενυώ a pair
like Φοῖβος and Φοίβη, etc.—Apyy, ’Evuw
Turnebus.

47. θέντες : causing, cf. Ὁ. 175.
Καδμείων a good example of the preg-
nant force in Greek syntax. The geni-
tive affects equally λαπάξειν (20 empty),
ἄστν, and βίᾳ being successively priva-
tive, possessive, and objective, ‘to de-
populate the Cadmean town in despite
of her defenders.’

48. τήνδε. Perhaps τῇδε thus, with
reference to the symbolical φόνος upon
their hands. πρόσθε dupdcew (the read-
ing as cited by Stobaeus, 77. 7, 11) looks
like an arbitrary correction of the super-
fluous τήνδε.

50. The memorials are hung on the

ETITA ΕΠΙ HBAS. 7

λείβοντες, οἶκτος δ᾽ οὔτις ἦν διὰ στόμα.

σιδηρόφρων γὰρ θυμὸς ἀνδρείᾳ φλέγων

ἔπνει, λεόντων ὡς “Apn δεδορκότων.

καὶ τῶνδε πύστις οὐκ ὄκνῳ ypoviterat,

κληρουμένους δ᾽ ἔλειπον, ὡς πάλῳ λαχὼν 55
ἕκαστος αὐτῶν πρὸς πύλας ἄγοι λόχον.

πρὸς ταῦτ᾽ ἀρίστους ἄνδρας ἐκκρίτους πόλεως

πυλῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδοισι τάγευσαι τάχος"
᾿ ἐγγὺς γὰρ ἤδη πάνοπλος ᾿Αργείων στρατὸς

χωρεῖ, κονίει, πεδία δ᾽ ἀργηστὴς ἀφρὸς 60

chariot of Adrastus, the chief of the
enterprise, both from its sacred dignity
and for the practical reason, that if
possible it would be saved from the
enemy in case of disaster. The act
however is undesignedly ominous,
Adrastus alone being destined to escape.
A scholiast rather simply asks how the
chieftains would know this; another gives
the not less simple reply that Amphiaraus
divined and revealed the event. μνημεῖα:
περόνας 4 τρίχας ἤ τι τὸ τοιοῦτον, Schol.
54. Lit. and the enquiry concerning
these things ts not being delayed by coward

hesitation, but, when I left, they were

casting lots etc., t.e. they are eager, like
the brave Hyperbius in v. 493, ‘to put to
fate the question of their destiny’ (see
note there), τῶνδε: the uncertain alter-
native of death or victory to which they
are sworn. Two explanations divide the
scholia and later commentaries: (1) your
learning this news has not been delayed
by slackness of mine, (2) your learning
(or reading πίστις, the proof) of the truth
of this report is not delayed by hesttation
on their part, t.e. ‘you will soon have the
evidence of deeds.’ But (1) does not
satisfy the meaning of ὄκνος (which is not
mere delay, but cowardly hesitation
or flinching), nor the tense of χρονίζεται,
which interrupting the imperfects ἔστεφον,
ἔπνει, ἔλειπον should be a true, not a
historic, present: and (2) forces the
meaning of πύστιξ, or else assumes that

the rare word πύστις has replaced the
common aloris, and in either case
supposes gratuitous suspicion in Eteocles.
Moreover οἱ πευσόμενοι should be those
whose action is being described, not
Eteocles, who has not been mentioned
since vw. 39-—In Stobaeus fc. (see
Hermann) there are traces of a quite
different reading, probably due merely to
loose recollection, καὶ τῷδε πίστις οὐ
μόνῳ χαρίζεται, and their confidence
tndulges them further than this, fo
ete.

55. ws-Aaxdv ἕκαστος ἄγοι: how
allotted, z.e, according to what distribution
of gates, cach was to lead, etc.; a
dependent question answering to the
direct πώς-λαχὼν ἄγω (deliberative subj. ).
Cf. v. 362 λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ws ἕκαστος εἴληχεν
πάλον. Better so constructed, than.as a
final sentence, which does not properly
express the relation between the actions.

58. tdyos: with speed, ‘inner’
accusative describing the action of the
verb τάγευσαι. The difference between
τάγευσον and rdyevoat may be expressed
by the use of the ‘ethic’ pronoun,
marshal thee.

59—64. Observe that in these brilliant

lines every touch tells on the metaphor

from storm, rising clouds, blots of wind-
driven foam, etc.

60. ἀργηστής, akin to, if it be not
indeed identical with, dpyeorhs the
‘white’ wind, occurs in Aesch. here and

8 AIZXYAOY

χραίνει σταλαγμοῖς ἱππικῶν ἐκ πλευμόνων.

σὺ δ᾽ ὥστε ναὸς κεδνὸς οἰακοστρόφος

φράξαι πόλισμα, πρὶν καταιγίσαι πνοὰς

"Apews’ βοᾷ γὰρ κῦμα χερσαῖον στρατοῦ.

καὶ τῶνδε καιρὸν ὅστις ὥκιστος λαβέ - 65
κἀγὼ τὰ λαιπὰ πιστὸν ἡμεροσκόπον

ὀφθαλμὸν ἕξω, καὶ σαφηνείᾳ λόγου

εἰδὼς τὰ τών θύραθεν ἀβλαβὴς ἔση.

ET.

ὦ Ζεῦ re καὶ Τῆ, καὶ πολισσοῦχοι θεοί,
"Apa τ᾽ ᾿Ερινὺς πατρὸς ἡ μεγασθενής,

70

μή μοι πόλιν γε πρυμνόθεν πανώλεθρον
ἐκθαμνίσητε δῃάλωτον, ᾿Ελλάδος

φθόγγον χέουσαν, καὶ δόμους ἐφεστίους"
ἐλευθέραν δὲ γῆν τε καὶ Κάδμου πόλιν

in Zum. 180, πτηνὸν ἀργηστὴν ὄφιν, in
both places of things in rapid motion.
The whiteness signified seems to be that
of wind-driven cloud or foam.

62. ‘Quoted’ for mock-tragic effect by
Jason in Eur. Med. 523.

64. στρατοῦ genitive defining; ‘a
land-wave in form of an army’. The
epithet χερσαῖον qualifies the metaphor as
in dpdts ἄπυρος of the gadfly’s sting, P. V.
gos (Paley) ἀκραγεῖς κύνας (eagles) 2d. 829,
(Davies).

66. ὑμερόσκοπον : the previous recon-
noitre having been made almost before
light. See on vw. 2.

1. πόλιν ye. Note the emphasis
thrown by theparticleupon πόλιν. ‘What-
ever else ye may inflict, destroy not a
Hellenic πόλις with all the local worship
depending on it.’ Such an extinction
was a shock to religious feeling, at least
as developed in the time of Aeschylus

and extended to the whole of Hellas.

πρυμνόθεν---πρέμνοθεν Valckenaer, from
the Attic πρέμνον, followed by many
editors since. But it seems impossible to
disprove, as against the MS. of Aeschylus,
his possible use of the Epic form. See
Lex, 5. Ὁ. πρυμνόθεν.

74. .ε. ἐλευθέραν δὲ (εὔχομαι vai)

γῆν καὶ πκόλ. Κάδμου ζνγοῖσι μὴ σχεθεῖν,
where εἶναι is the infinitive of prayer,
fvyots depends as dative of Yelation on
ἐλευθέραν εἶναι, and σχεθεῖν is consecutive ;
grant that the land and city of Cadmus
may be free in respect of slavish yokes so
that they never hold tt, to render the
MS. literally according to such syntax as
it has. The explanation that ἰνγοῖσι
depends upon δότε supplied’ is surely
illusory. The word which is loosely
said to be ‘supplied’ with the zsfinitivus
precantis cannot play a part in the syntax.
What if it were not δότε but εὔχομαι ?—
The want of a principal verb, the redun-
dance of γῆν, and the false order of γῆν
re καὶ K. aw. all point to a fault in Ὁ. 74.
Perhaps ἐλευθέραν δ᾽ ἀνῆτε καὶ K. πόλιν,
where καὶ would be not aad but also,
z.é. among other Hellenic cities, each
and all being important to the worship
of the gods ;—and let not the free town of
Cadmus be ytelded any more than another
to the possession of a slavish yoke. This
would give in English the force of the καὶ,
though the form is comparatively cum-
brous. The idiomatic uses of καί in classi-
cal Greek have caused not a few Ms.
errors.— μήποτ᾽ toxere, Pauw.

“

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ.

ζυγοῖσι δουλίοισι μήποτε σχεθεῖν. 75
γένεσθε δ᾽ ἀλκή" ξυνὰ δ᾽ ἐλπίζω λέγειν'

πόλις γὰρ εὖ πράσσουσα δαίμονας τίει.
ΧΟΡΟΣ ΠΑΡΘΕΝΩΝ.

θρέομαι φοβερὰ μεγάλ᾽ ἄχη.

μεθεῖται στρατὸς στρατόπεδον λυπών.

ῥεῖ πολὺς ὅδε λεὼς πρόδρομος ἱππότας. 80
αἰθερία κόνις με πείθει φανεῖσ᾽

ἄναυδος σαφὴς ἔτυμος ἄγγελος,

ἐλεδέμασ πεδιοπλοκτύπος f

τί χρίμπτεται Bods. ποτᾶται, βρέμει δ᾽

ἀμαχέτου δίκαν ὕδατος. ὁὀροτύπου. 85

ἰὼ ἰὼ ἰὼ θεοὶ

θεαί τ᾽ ὀρόμενον κακὸν ἀλεύσατε.

Ὁ e A 4
Boa ὑπὲρ τειχέων
78. δουλείοισι---σχέθειν.

75. δουλίοισι Aldus,

"6. ἕλπίζω trust, believe, inwhich sense
it is correctly followed by the present
infinitive. Cf. Plato Rep. 451 A. 573 Ὁ.
Rutherford on Babrius 9. 2. ξυνὰ λέγειν,
plead a common interest.

47. τίει rewards, the primary mean-
ing of all words from this root.—Here
Eteocles hastily leaves with his attendants
to make arrangements for the defence of
the gates (see v. 57). The stage being
clear, enter (in the orchestra) the Chorus of
Maidens, flying to the sanctuary of the
Acropolis in wild alarm at the approach
of the enemy. On the metrical distribu-
tion of the entrance-song (πάροδος) see
Appendix.

79. μεθεῦται.. ῥεῖ. The metaphor is
from water, as a torrent or lake, ‘loosed’
from a confining barrier.

81. aldepla φανεῖσα together. —On
ἔτυμος ἄγγελος see the second Appendix.

83. καὶ τὰ τῆς γῆς δέ μου πεδία.

κατακτυπούμενα τοῖς ποσὶ τῶν ἵππων [καὶ
τῶν ὅπλων] ποιεῖ μον προσπελάζειν τὸν
ἦχον τοῖς ὠσίν, Schol. Whence Wecklein,
combining suggestions from vecc. Enger,

87. ἀλεύσετε.

Seidler and F. W. Ritschl, reconstructs

‘thus —lde δὲ γᾶς ἐμᾶς πεδί᾽ ὁπλόκτυπ' ὠτὶ
χρίμπτει

βοάν. ποτᾶται, sc. ἡ βοή,
apparently expresses, by a bold metaphor,
both the swift advance and also the
hovering rise and faH of the sound made
by approaching numbers; the roar of a
waterfall at a distance is similarly inter-
mittent (see Ὁ. 85).

87. ὀρόμενον. Note the aorist, lit.
which has started on its course.

88—go. The context here shows that
πτόλις is used, as frequently in this
scene, in the familiar Athenian sense of
ἀκρόπολις, the citadel, which the scene
represents. (See also ὕ. 125 and v. 207
compared with v. 227.) In the excited
imagination of the speakers the enemy is
already carrying the outer wall and
pursuing to the citadel. The pursued are
defenders of the wall or the speakers
themselves, one or both.—The omission
of the object to διώκων scarcely raises
a difficulty, but it is a little curious that
the besieged should not be mentioned,
and the Aiatus in βοᾷ-ὑπὲρ is very dubious
in Aeschylus. This points rather to the

ΙΟ AIZXYAOY

6 λεύκασπις ὄρνυται λαὸς ev-

τρεπὴς ἐπὶ πτόλιν διώκων.

᾽ὔ ΝΥ ef “ Μ.» 5 ’
τὶς ἄρα ρύσεται, Tis ἂρ ἔπαρκέσει

θεῶν ἢ θεᾶν ;

πότερα δῆτ᾽ ἐγὼ πάτρια ποτιπέσω βρέτη δαιμόνων ;

ἰὼ μάκαρες εὔεδροι,

ἀκμάξει βρετέων ἔχεσθαι: τί μέλ-

λομεν ἀγάστονοι ;

95

9 U >, ἃ 9 9 [4 9 9 ,
ἀκούετ᾽ ἢ οὐκ ἀκούετ᾽ ἀσπίδων κτύπον ;
πέπλων καὶ στεφέων πότ᾽ εἰ μὴ νῦν ἀμ-

gt λύίταν᾽ ἕξομεν ;

, . t 3 \ ἢ
κτύπον δέδορκα᾽ πάταγος οὐ κενὸς δορός.

τί ῥέξεις ; προδώσεις,

ΙΟοΟ-:

παλαίχθων “Apns, τὰν τεάν ;

ὦ χρυσοπήληξ δαῖμον, .
93. ἐγὼ ποτιπέσω.

reading βοὰν ὑπὲρ τειχέων, tc. τὴν ὑπὲρ
τῶν τειχέων βοήθειαν the defenders of the
wall: for βοή: βοήθεια, and for the ab-
stract βοήθεια in the concrete sense of
βοηθοί, see Lex. s. vv. Of course ὑπὲρ
τειχέων would still supply the explana-
tion to ὄρνυται also.—Aebxaows, mark
of the Argives. Soph. Amt. 114. Eur.
Phoen. 1099. (Paley.)

93- πάτρια restored by Volckmann
from the Schol. πότερον πρόσφνγες τῶν
πατρῴων ξοάνων γενόμεθα (γενώμεθα) ἢ
, ἄλλο τι πράξομεν; Note however that
πότερα is not for πότερον but signifies
which rather ?

98. ἀμφὶ Alrav’ ἕξομεν, Seidler. This
seems right, but it cannot mean ‘be
engaged in prayer’. The preposition
belongs to the verb (¢mesis), ἀμπίσχειν
being used as in Eur. Supp. 165 γόνυ σὸν
ἀμπίσχων χερί for the act of grasping the
symbol of supplication. The λίτανα
πέπλων καὶ στέφεων are the votive robes
and wreaths with which the images and
the surrounding βωμοὶ etc. are decorated :
ἐνέδυον yap καὶ πέπλους ra ἀγάλματα,
Schol. Cf. Lum. 39 and 55. The

98. στεφάνων corr. to στεφέων---ἀμφίλιταν.

100. οὐχ ἑνὸς.

object of grasping them is to place the
suppliant in actual contact with the gods
and so in their protection. The fugitives on
this occasion naturally bring no offerings.
The genitives define Nirava, an adjective
used as substantive without article, as often
in poetry and particularly by Aeschylus.

100. J see that clang; that clashing
ts mot weaponless, 1.6, ‘it is the clash
of arms, and no other sound’. The
κτύπος and πάταγος are the imagined
sounds of the enemy, clashing their arms
as they come on. A ‘sound’ which is
‘seen’ is already clothed in figure, and
may without impropriety be ‘armed’.
To ‘see’ a sound is a terse expression for
‘to picture’ the thing suggested by it;
there is no reason to suppose that dédopxa
could mean ‘I hear’, For the phrase
κενὸς δορός cf. Rhes. 792. The author
of the Rhesus has borrowed elsewhere
from this play ; see on v. 373.—The MS.
appears to me impossible ; #of one is no
synonym for many. .

102. τὰν reay (γῶν), ἃ common ellipse.
γᾶν Tedy rece.

re "> Gleile

ETTTA ΕΠῚ OHBA2. ΕΙ

ὟΝ

ἔπιδ᾽ ἔπιδε πόλιν,
ἅν ποτ᾽ εὐφιλήταν ἔθου.

θέδὶ πολιάοχοι χθονός, ἴθ᾽ ἴτε πάντες,

ἴδετε παρθένων

105
στρ.

ἱκέσιον λόχον δουλοσύνας ὕπερ.
κῦμα γὰρ περὶ πτόλιν δοχμολόφων ἀνδρῶν

καχλάξζει πνοαῖς “Apeos ὀρόμενον.

110

ἀλλ᾽ ὦ Ζεῦ πάτερ παντέλές, πάντως

ἄρηξον δαΐων ἅλωσιν.

᾿Αργεῖοι δὲ πόλισμα Κάδμου
κυκλοῦνται, φόβος δ᾽ ἀρηΐων ὅπλων,

/ ’ e ’
διαδέτοι γενύων ἱππείων
κινύρονται φόνον χαλινοί.

115

ἑπτὰ δ᾽ ἀγήνορες πρέποντες στρατοῦ
δορυσσόοις σαγαῖς πύλαις ἑβδόμαις

᾿ς 103. δαίμων. δαῖμον τα.
113. γὰρ τη.

ΙΟ5. 66 ΟἹ v. 125.

106. ἴθι, not grammatically inad-
missible, the word having become a mere
formula of invocation ; cf. Aristoph. Raz.
1378 ἴθι νυν παρίστασθον.---ἴθ᾽ ἁθρόοι
(πάντες gloss) Steusloff.

109. δοχμολόφων. The dashing of
the crests from side to side, as the enemy
seek a point to scale, is finely compared to
the waves of a broken sea.

113. γάρ, offered in M asan alternative
reading or conjecture, is clearly preferable
in sense. Perhaps γὰρ ὅπλισμα: where
ὅπλισμα armament is for ὁπλίτας. “For
ὅπλισμα in a similar sense see Eur. /ph.
A. 283, τῶν Βοιωτῶν δ᾽ ὅπλισμα.. .εἰδόμαν"
τοῖς δὲ Ἑάδμος ἦν ἀμφὶ ναῶν κόρυμβα,
possibly a reminiscence of this passage.

115. διαδέτοι (stc) M. Possibly διάδε-
rot δέ τοι Dindorf. The genitive γενύων
depends on the preposition.

117. ayavopes, Dindorf: but we
cannot tell what limits literary tradition
imposed on the semi-Doric language of
the chorus, and a peculiar epic word such

T
106. χθονὸς * (four or five letters erased) ἴθ fre.
118, σαγαῖς written by τὰ, the first five letters having been erased.

as ἀγήνωρ may well have retained its 7.
πρέποντες στρατοῦ δορυσσόοις (or Sopuc-
σόον) σαγαῖς distinguished above the host
by their martial accoutrements (or, above
the martial host by their accoutrements).
The genitive στρατοῦ depends on the com-
parative sense of πρέποντες, a poetic equi-
valent for the prose dtarpérovres. The
δόρυ is the universal symbol of war, like
the modern sword.

118. πύλαις ἑβδόμαις: a curious use of
the ordinal number, which may, however,
be explained, if we remember that πύλαι
is sing. (a gate) as well as plur. A gate
which is ove of seven may as properly be
called a seventh gate as a man who has
six companions is said πορεύεσθαι ἕβδομος
αὐτός, the ordinal in either case giving the
total of the series only, not the place of
the unit. With ἕκαστος therefore the sense
would be clear—were taking post by lots,
cach at one gate of the seven; and the
idea of distribution is sufficiently expressed
by πάλῳ λαχόντες.---πύλαις ἕπτ᾽ ἐμαῖς
Enger.

12 _ ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

προσίσταντο πάλῳ λαχόντες.

σύ τ᾽, ὦ Διογενὲς φιλόμαχον κράτος,

ῥυσίπολις γενοῦ,
Παλλάς, ὁ

θ᾽' ἵππιος ποντομέδων ἄναξ

ἰχθυβόλῳ μαχανᾷ ἸΠοσειδᾶν
erie φονῶν ἐπίλυοσιν δίδου.

r ἼΑρης φεῦ φεῦ ἐπώνυμον Κάδμου πόλιν

φύλαξον κήδεσαί τ᾽ ἐναργῶς.

καὶ Κύπρις, ἅτε γένους προμάτωρ,
” . , ’ ”

ἄλευσον' σέθεν ἐξ αἵματος

1190. προσίστανται. 123. μαχαν»ᾶ.

γὰρ ἐξ rece.

119. προσίσταντο Paley: ἃ correction
strongly recommended by sense as well as
metre.
this scene this is the only piece of
pure fact, which the isolated imperfect
serves to mark, while the error of
adapting it to the pervading present
tenses is facile. What the chiefs ‘were
doing’ the maidens actually learnt; what
they suppose the enemy to be doing now
is mere imagination.

121. fvorlrodts: probably (note γενοῦ)
a local title of worship, which Pallas is
besought to justify. Cf. vv. 131 and 9.

122—124. Amd thou, Poseidon, lord
of the steed, lord of the sea by thy fish-
striking engine, with deadly purpose let,

O let, thy weapon fly! Poseidon, whose
statue in the scene bears the ‘Aarfoon of
his invention (μηχανή), is invoked to put
forth the power expressed by this deadly
symbol. The words ἰχθυβόλῳ μαχανᾷ
are the hinge of the sentence, explaining
(as instrumental) both ποντομέδων and
φονῶν (from φονάω), and supplying also
the remote object to δίδον. The term
ἐπίλυσις is borrowed from the chase (see
Lex. s.v. ἐπιλύειν), perhaps from the use of
the harpoon itself. It signifies sHippzng
at, or loosing at, as of dogs at the quarry.
Like the dog, the trident had its leathern
leash, an analogy which explains the
ἐπιλύειν τρίαιναν, whether it was used in

Among the imaginary terrors of -

*Apews εἶχεν Kd duos, Schol.

avr. 120

125

124. φόνων»---φόβον τὰ. 128. σέθεν

| prose or only in a poetic figure. By the

form δίδον ἐπίλυσιν it is further suggested
that the weapon is eager to go. The
schol. καὶ σὺ ὦ Ποσειδῶν ὃς ἀνάσσεις ἐπὶ
θήρᾳ ἰχθύων rightly touches the metaphor.
--φόνων, with the accentuation of M, is
also possible, as an objective genitive to
ἐπίλυσιν with the meaning Jet thy weapon
launch death (cf. Eum. 508 πάντ' ἐφήσω
μόρον, 7 will let loose all manner of
death) ; but the participle is perhaps more
clear.—This passage has been effectually
obscured by the unhappy suggestion of
the first corrector, ἐπίλυσιν φόβου, give
us release from fear, which has put expla-
nation off the track. To say nothing as
to the propriety of the sense put on
ἐπίλυσις, the prayer is thus disjoined from
the invocation and the whole is reduced
to pointless verbiage.

125. ἐπώγυμον Κάδμον πόλιν. The
πόλις (in the limited sense of ἀκρόπολις)
of Thebes, the Καδμεία, where this
scene is laid. Cf. Paus. 1x. 5. 2 Kdé-
μος δὲ τὴν πόλιν τὴν καλουμένην ἔτι καὶ és
ἡμᾶς Καδμείαν ᾧκισεν. See on v. 88.---φεῦ
expresses indignation at his supposed
neglect.—kjSerar: κηδεστὴς ἐναργῶς γε-
γοῦ, i.e. ‘vindicate by visible act thy
κῆδος (affinity by marriage) with Cad-
mus.’—Appovlay γὰρ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτης καὶ
The genea-
logy also explains the appeal to Aphrodite.

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBAS. 13

γεγόναμεν λιταῖσί σε θεοκλύτοις

ἀπύουσαι πελαξζόμεσθα.

130

καὶ σύ, Λύκει᾽ ἄναξ, Λύκειος γενοῦ
στρατῷ δαΐῳ στόνων auras,
σύ τ᾽, ὦ Λατογένεια κούρα.

129. λιταῖσ. 131. λύκιος.
Apres φίλα---ἐντυκάζου m.

129. λιταῖσί. Hermann.

132. dvurds: i.e. ἀυτὴς, substantive
‘fof the agent” from the stem of diw
shrick. This reading, which is in fact
that of the ms.—for the accentuation is
naturally of no authority—is perhaps pre-
ferable to dvrats, though the form durhs
does not occur elsewhere. The accen-
tuation dias is actually given by one of the
later MSS., but nothing can be rested upon
this. This passage is generally treated
as corrupt, for want, as I think, of a true
understanding of the subject and of the
connexion between στόνοι and the in-
vocation of Avxeos. Either dvrds or
ἀνταῖς gives the same meaning—And
thou, wolf-lord, prove thy wolf power
with watl and howl upon the enemy heost.
By the title Avxews Apollo is associated
with the wolf, which in the legends, as
usually in such cases, is represented some-
times as his enemy, sometimes as the
instrument or the minister of his power.
A figure of one of his wolf-servants stood
near the great altar at Delphi and was
explained by a story. Historically there
can be little doubt that the cult of Δύ-
κειος, and that of Avxatos in Arcadia,
were simple wolf-worships, absorbed with
many others in the anthropomorphic wor-
ship of Apollo and Zeus respectively.
Under this animal-name and in language
older than his own religion he is here in-
voked to perform a function like that of
another animal-deity, Pan, whose terrible
cries were supposed to cause the Πανικὸς
φόβος (Smith, Dict. Myth. s.v. Pan). There
is the strongest reason to think that this
resemblance to Pan was actually in the

132. duras.

133. κούρα τόξον « oruxd tou (?)

mind of the poet, for the worship of Pan,
in conjunction with that of Apollo, had .
just been solemnly established or restored
at Athens in gratitude for aid against
the Persians at the battle of Marathon,
Herod. 6. 105. Pausanias 1. 28, 4. See
on the former passage Blakesley, who
suggests with great probability that the
‘Apollo’ of this cult had appropriated
an older worship and legend. For the
animal character of the god as an instru-
ment of terror, compare the invocation
of Dionysus, Eur. Bacch. 1017 φάνηθι
ταῦρος ἣ πολύκρανος ἰδεῖν δράκων .----Αὐκειος
γενοῦ : πολέμιος" οἷον, ὥσπερ λύκος αὐτοῖς
ἐφόρμησον ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἡμεῖς νῦν θρηνοῦμεν
(ἐγ: recompense of our lamentations). οὕτω
τινὲς τὸ Λύκειος. 7, ἐπιβλαβὴς τοῖς πολε-
μίοις ἐπὶ (in the presence of) τῆς ἀυτῆς τῶν
στόνων γενοῦ, οἷον ἐπὶ τοῦ πολέμου (taking
ἀντή in the epic sense of wav): Schol.
Both explanations are correct as far as
they go with respect to Avxeos: the
first has been supposed to point to a
variant for duras (whence Wecklein
dyriras vepayer); but probably it is, like
the second, only an attempt to construe
the genitive by the favourite ancient de-
vice of a preposition ‘‘understood”. If
we suppose syllabic correspondence with
the strophe we must change the order to
auras στόνων στρατῷ daly. But see Ap-
pendix.

133. τόξον "στυκάζον "Apres φίλα. If
M really has an o, these words may be a
mere corruption of τόξον στοχάζον, for
neither εὐτυκάζεσθαι: εὔτυκτον ἔχε, Frot-
pov (L. Dindorf), nor τυχάζεσθαι : στοχά-
geoOa: (Hartung) has any authority ex-

14 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

é ὃ ὁ &,

ὄτοβον ἁρμάτων ἀμφὶ πόλιν κλύω,

ὦ πότνι᾽ “Ἥρα'

135

ἔλακον ἀξόνων βριθομένων χνόαι.

ἼΑρτεμι φίλα'
ἃ ἃ ἃ ἔ.

δοριτίνακτος δ᾽ αἰθὴρ ἐπιμαίνεται.

140

A , 4
τί πόλις ἄμμι πάσχει, τί γενήσεται;
ποῖ δ᾽ ἔτι τέλος ἐπάγει θεός ;

ἐ ὃ ὃ ἔ,

>
ayvT.

ἀκροβόλων δ᾽ ἐπάλξεων λιθὰς ἔρχεται.

ὦ φίλ᾽ "Απολλον---

145

κόναβος ἐν πύλαις χαλκοδέτων σακέαν---

καὶ Διόθεν

136. πότνια.

cept this passage and glosses probably
referring to it (see Lex. 5. vv.). In any
case, they are an interpolation ; for
the metrical evidence see vw. 119. By
the epithet Aaroyévea Artemis (Λυκία)
as well as Apollo is connected with the
wolf, the she-wolf being one of the forms
of Leto (Smith Dict. Myth. s.v. Leto).
She is here invoked with her brother
in the same wolfish aspect, and no
separate prayer is required. In intro-
ducing the ‘bow’ the interpolator was
guided by the later conception of Δύκειος
and his sister. As Apollo and Artemis as-
similated the wolf-deities, the aspect of the
old animal-gods disappeared in a refined
anthropomorphic god and goddess of light
whose arrows are fire. (See Soph. O. 7.
203 foll. with Prof. Jebb’s note.) But
Aeschylus here, as often, touches far
more primitive ideas, and the ‘bow’ is
aesthetically as well as metrically out
of place. It will be observed that
neither ‘Apollo’ nor ‘Artemis’ is here
named.—Apreu φίλα omitted by Seidler.

137. βριθομένων, note the tense. Zhe
naves cried as the axles felt the weight,
literally were being loaded.

140. And the air (sky?) ts maddened

above (emt-?) with the shaking of the
spears (?). A hyperbole .in the style
familiar to modern literature through the
Latin poets, but surprising in Aeschylus.

142. And to what beyond doth fate
lead the event? θεός. See vv. 4, 21, 35
etc.

144. ἀκροβόλων. The only proved
sense of this word is skirmuisher and
specially slinger (see Lex. s. vv. axpo-
βόλος, ἀκροβολέω, etc.), and it may have
that sense here (Blomfield). The majority,
however, make it here a passive adj.
(axpdBoros) hit at the top.—éwahtéwy de-
pends on λιθὰς ἔρχεται, by a construc-
tion between the objective genitive and
that of such verbs as στοχάζεσθαι.----ΤῊ Ἔα
λιθὰς comes from the besiegers, not the
besieged (so Hermann). The speakers in
this litany make no account of the
human defence.

147- And thou, chaste power of war
stablished by Zeus, and blessed queen of
the patriot battle, Onca, save thy seat
of the Seven Gates. “Oya: Theban god-
dess, identified (according to Pausanias
and the schol. here) with Athena, and
derived by local tradition from the Phoe-
nicians. The corresponding masculine

—~

ENTTTA ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

Ld ς b) LA i

πολεμόκραντον ἁγνὸν τέλος ἐν payxat-

, é > » >
σί Te μάκαιρ᾽ ἄνασσ᾽' “Oyxa πρὸ πόλεως,
« > Ul
ἑπτάπυλον os ἐπιρρύου.
ἐὼ παναρκεῖς θεοί,
ta) τέλειοι τέλειαί τε γᾶς
τᾶσδέ γε πυργοφύλακες,

15

150
στρ.

πόλιν δορίπονον μὴ προδῶθ'

ἑτεροφώνῳ στρατῷ.

155

κλύετε παρθένων κλύετε πανδίκως

χειροτόνους λιτάς.
ἐὼ φίλοι δαίμονες

?
avT.

λυτήριοί τ, ἀμφιβάντες πόλιν

δείξαθ᾽ ὡς φιλοπόλιες,

μέλεσθε δ᾽ ἱερῶν δημίων,

μελόμενοι δ᾽ ἀρήξατε:

160

φιλοθύτων δέ τοι πόλεως ὀργίων

μνήστορες ἔστε μοι.

150. ἐπιρόου corr. bym. , 151. παναλκεῖς τη΄. 156. πανδίκους corr. to παν-
δίκως. 159. λυτήριοι ἀμφιβάντες.

("O-yxos, “O-yxcos, "ΟΎκαιο9) appears in the
legends of Arcadia (Paus. 8. .25) in con-
nection with Apollo, who here also is
associated with “Oyxa, v. 146 being
parenthetic.—té&dos power, authority; for
the personal sense cf. Supp. 533 dvat
ἀνάκτων, μακάρων paxdprare καὶ τελέων
τελειώτατον κράτος, which unites the same
three terms of invocation which we have
here.—— For proposed corrections see
Wecklein. If τέλος be taken as above,
there is nothing in the sense to throw
doubt upon the ms. As to the metre
see Appendix.

151. παναρκεῖς (or wavadkets) θεοί
gods whose quality ἐξ ἐς to help. Cf. πάν-
Tpopos πελειάς 281.--κατὰ πάντα βοηθοί.
τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον θεῶν. Scholl.

153. τέλειοι yas τάσδέ γε πυργοφύ-
λακες who by your office are sentinels of
these ¢owers. For τέλειος (from τέλος
in the sense of v. 148) cf. ἀνὴρ τέλειος
of the husband who bears rule in the
house (4g. 963); the same explanation

probably applies to τελεία as the epithet
of the married Ἥρα (Ἥρας τελείας καὶ
Διὸς πιστώματα ἔπε. 214).—The γε of
Μ, whether correct or not, gives an
excellent point, contrasting their general
quality as gods, with the more particular
duty to their local habitation.

154. Soplwovoy in the struggle of war.
Slightly different in 615.

157. Note the emphasis given by
position to παρθένων; it is because of
their purity that they can justly hola
up their hands.

159. λντήριοί τ᾿ Seidler. ἀμφιβάντες
standing over, in the attitude of protection.

160. φιλοπόλιεςς. Cf. μεγαλοπόλιες
Pind. Pyth. 2,1. Supply ἔστε.

163. πόλεος Porson. os gives φιλο-
θύτων ὀργίων the tone of reminder, being
used of that which is in the knowledge
of the person addressed. φιλοθύτων
ὀργίων the welcome sacrificial feasts, the
second part of the compound repeating
the idea of the substantive.

16
ET.

ὑμᾶς ἐρωτῶ, θρέμματ᾽ οὐκ ἀνασχετά,

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

165

ἢ ταῦτ᾽ ἄριστα, καὶ πόλει σωτήρια
στρατῷ τε θάρσος τῷδε πυργηρουμένῃ
βρέτη πεσούσας πρὸς πολισσούχων θεῶν
αὔειν, λακάξειν, σωφρόνων μισήματα ;

μήτ᾽ ἐν κακοῖσι μήτ᾽ ἐν εὐεστοῖ φίλῃ

170

ξύνοικος εἴην τῷ γυναικείῳ yéver’

κρατοῦσα μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ὁμιλητὸν θράσος,
δείσασα δ᾽ οἴκῳ καὶ πόλει πλέον κακόν.
καὶ νῦν πολίταις τάσδε διαδρόμους φυγὰς

θεῖσαι διερροθήσατ᾽ ἄψυχον κάκην,

175

167. πυργηρουμένη corr. to πυργηρουμένωι.

16s. The cries and flight of the
maidens have alarmed the city and dis-
couraged the fighting men. Eteocles, in-
terrupted in the task of selecting his seven
champions now returns in haste and an-
ger to quiet them. He is accompanied
by some of his soldiers (v. 167).—tpas.
Note the emphasis. He appeals to their
own reason. .

166. We must notice that καὶ is not
a copula and does not join ἄριστα to
σωτήρια: it signifies even, and marks, as
often, an appeal to an admitted premiss—
“75 this best even (or merely) as a way to
save the city and to encourage her de-
jenders, which safety and defence are
what you seek δ᾽ These noisy supplications
actually defeat their own object, besides
being, as he adds, indecent (zv. 169).—
It is the erroneous supposition that xa is
a copula, together with the sense that
upon that supposition ἄριστα καὶ πόλει
σωτήρια would be bad writing, which has
suggested the substitution of ἀρεστὰ
(Dindorf) or χρῆστα (Meineke).

167. πυργηρουμένῃ (πόλει) depends
upon σωτήρια θάρσος τε στρατῷ τῷδε, 10
save the beleaguered city and encourage
her soldiers here (to whom he points).
It is the ‘possessive’ dative or dative of
‘interest’, which in poetry frequently re-
presents a prose genitive. See on zw,
621, 007. The correction of M may of

course be from the preceding copy, but
is more probably a hasty conjecture.

169. αὕειν λακάζειν. Thelatter word
has the same contemptuous effect in Supp.
884; avew is connected by Blomfield
with av, the bark of a dog, so that it
would differ from the epic verb whose
future is ἀύσω.---σωφρόνων μισήματα (se-
haviour) which decency abhors: ταῦτα, ἃ
πράττετε, μισήσειαν dv ol εὖ φρονοῦντες
ἄνδρες, Schol. It belongs to the σώφρων,
a word for which we lack a precise equi-
valent, to control himself and to avoid
extravagance in gesture and expression as
in other things.

171. ta M (see Hermann). τῷ Wecklein.

172—173. The so-called ‘pendent’
nominatives κρατοῦσα and δείσασα are
justified in thought by the fact that γυνή
is the logical though not the grammatical
subject of the following sentences.

173. Either (1) che trouble ts more
for house and city, or (2) as one of the
later scholiasts, z¢ 7s a trouble to a house,
and for a city more. The second gives
the better point; ξύνοικος in v. 171 leads
up naturally to οἴκῳ, and καὶ πόλει πλέον
extends it for the present purpose.

174. καὶ νῦν see on v.21. πολίταις
with διερροθήσατε. διαδρόμους in full
sense; the maidens have run through the
city from various parts to the Acropolis,
spreading fear as they went.

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBA2. 17

τὰ τῶν θύραθεν δ᾽ ws ἄριστ᾽ ὀφέλλεται,
αὐτοὶ δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ αὑτῶν ἔνδοθεν πορθούμεθα.
Kel μή τις ἀρχῆς τῆς ἐμῆς ἀκούσεται,
ἀνὴρ γυνή τε χὥ τι τῶν μεταίχμιον,

ψῆφος κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ὀλεθρία βουλεύσεται,

180

λευστῆρα δήμου δ᾽ οὔ τι μὴ φύγῃ μόρον.
μέλει γὰρ ἀνδρί, μὴ γυνὴ βουλενέτω
τἀξωθεν᾽ ἔνδον δ᾽ οὖσα μὴ βλάβην τιθῇ.

178. τῆς written above the line. 18

177. After this line the later Mss.
insert τοιαῦτα dy (or τ᾿ dy or Ὑ ay: τὰν
Blomfield) γυναιξὶ συνναίων ἔχοις. But
the abruptness and incoherence of the
καὶ in v. 178 is intentional. It is as
incorrect and as appropriate to the feelings
of the speaker as the reference to the pos-
sible ‘third sex’.

180—181. The pebble (of council) shall
deliberate the doom of them, and by the ston-
ing of the people they shall inevitably die.
Regular justice with its chance of escape
will be supplemented by the rude justice
of a desperate populace. The first half
of the antithesis, though without a μὲν,
as often, merely leads the way to the
second, which expresses the real point,
the certainty of punishment in the present
situation. κατ᾽ αὐτῶν, 2.2. κατ᾽ αὐτῶν
τῶν βουλενομένων. αὐτός is emphatic, as
almost always in Aeschylus. The fears
of Eteocles extend, as his language shows,
beyond the women; he is afraid that their
conduct will encourage the disaffected to
dispute orders. If any debate instead of
obeying (for the antithesis cf. vv. 209, 210,
and note BovAevérw in v. 182), he will
first turn against themselves, the plotters,
their own -instrument of deliberation,
and if that fails, he will bring upon them
the enraged people, (See the case cited
below.) βονλεύσεται passive. A vote.
of death will be deliberated (not resolved
upon). There is a double antithesis be-
tween the βουλή (suggested by βουλεύ-
σεται) and the δῆμος and between the

V. 4.

I. φύγι"" corr. to φύγηι.

I 8 3° τίθει.

voting-pebble and the stone. (Com-
pare the ‘voting-pebble’ of Amompha-
retus, Herod. 1x.55.) Note the emphasis
given to δήμου as well as Aevoriipa by
the position of 6¢.—This passage derives,
and I think was certainly meant to derive,
a terrible significance from certain facts
within the memory of the Athenian
audience. Aeschylus, it would appear,
had not forgotten the fate of Lycides,
one of the Athenian βουλή, stoned to
death, as well as his wife and children,.
by the people, in the year of Plataea,
for proposing to refer to the δῆμος the
terms offered by Mardonius. (Herod.
Ix. 5.) If we may reasonably presume
that the members of the βουλή who in-
stigated the populace to despatch him,
had not omitted to demand his punish-
ment in the council, the case will be
the more suggestive.

183. τιθῇ or τίθει M (which gives
τιθεῖς for τίθης in Ὁ. 223, ἄρηι for “Ape v.
484, στύγεϊ for orvye in Cho. 110, θήη
for θείη in Cho. 340, πάρει for παρῇ in
Cho. 521 etc.) is of no authority on the
point. But the sense appears decisive
against τίθει, The injunction ἔνδον οὖσα.
μὴ βλάβην τίθει cannot, by the rules of
grammar, mean ‘Go within and do not
hinder’. Nor indeed does Eteocles in
this scene express any wish that the.
maidens should return home. With τιθῇ
we have a forcible climax: ‘What is
beyond the door is the man’s affair; let
not the woman advise therein. Within

2

18 MIZXYAOY

ἤκουσας ἢ οὐκ ἤκουσας, ἢ κωφῇ λέγω;

ΧΟ.

σασα τὸν ἁρματόκτυπον
ὄτοβον, ὅτι τε σύ-

ὦ φίλον Οἰδίπου τέκος, Bevo” ἀκού-

185

στρ. α΄.

puyyes ἔκλαγξαν ἑλίέτροχοι,

187.

the house she is like enough to hinder’,
For μή with subj. as an independent
sentence expressing a probable doubt
or fear see Hom. Od. 22. 213, and other
examples in Kiihner Gr. Gram. ὃ 394,
6.---τἄξωθεν, which in prose order would
follow ἀνδρὶ, is displaced to point the
antithesis with ἔνδον.---Α᾿λάβην: hindrance
rather than mzschtef merely. Cf. uz.
495 el κρατήσει βλάβα τοῦδε ματροκτόνου
tf the matricide shall succeed in checking
(us), and the phrases βλάπτεσθαι κελεύθου,
βλαβέντα δρόμων.

185. On the metres see Appendix.

ἀκούσασα. They mistake, or choose to
mistake, the meaning of his question
ἤκουσας; cf. uv. 232,—On this word
depend (1) ὄτοβον, (2) ὅτι τε ἔκλαγ-
gay, (3) ἱππικῶν τε χαλινῶν, the cases
according to the common distinction, acc.
of the sound heard, gen. of the source
whence it proceeds, —rs, in its primary
sense as a relative pronoun, gives an in-
tentional vagueness, and all the rolling
bass of the chariot-wheel.—oipryyes the
wheel, properly staves. The origin of
this word is traced in the schol. (m’) to
the archaic form of wheel, made not
with radiating spokes, but with two sets
of cross bars at right angles to each
other. Such a wheel is a first departure
from the solid, and far more easy for
a rude workman to make than that with
spokes. The intervals of the cross-pieces
being equal, the lengths of them diminish
regularly from the central one, so that
each set resembles the double cipeyé with
its diminishing pipes, and the entire
structure was therefore called σύριγγες,
or less accurately as in Soph. 25. 721
σῦριγξ. σύριγγες τὰ ξύλα τὰ μέσον τοῦ

ὅτε rec.

περιφεροῦς ξύλου τοῦ τροχοῦ διαπεραιού-
μενα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ αὑτῶν ἐστι μέγα, τὸ δὲ
ἕτερον μικρότερον, ἄλλο δ᾽ at τοῦ δευτέρου
μικρότερον, λόγον τῶν αὐλῶν τῶν συρίγγων
ἐπέχοντα. This interesting explanation
carries authority, though we need not
necessarily suppose that the Attic poets
so conceived their wheels; the name
σύριγγες, though no longer appropriate,
would easily pass to the improved spoke-
wheel. See however the description of
the breaking wheel in Eur. App. 1234
σύριγγες ἄνω τροχῶν ἐπήδων. The stave-
wheel would certainly break exactly
thus. The interpretation axle-box or
axle-pipe (Lex.) is wholly without evi-
dence, and contrary to the passage in
the Electra, where as elsewhere the axle-
box is χνοή.---ἀύπνων : probably corrupt:
perhaps for αὐοπνῶν (-πνόων) or ἀνόπνουν
(-rvoov), from αὖος, harsh-sounding (see
Lex. $v), whence αὐονή harsh sound
(κραυγή Etym. Mag.), used in Aesch. Zum.
334 ὕμνος ἐξ ᾿Ερινύων ἀφόρμικτος αὐονὰ
βροτοῖς (where see Hermann, who how-
ever there prefers another interpretation).
Join αὐοπνῶν διὰ στόμα. ἱππικὸν (Bothe)
would simplify the construction. Note
that the whole description here suggests
the metaphor of a harsh and dread-
ful music; SroBos (of the flute), σύριγγες

᾿ (cf. Supp. 187 σύριγγες οὐ σιγῶσιν ἀξονή-

λατοι, where as here the verbal asso-
ciation with sound is not forgotten), κλαγ-
γή (of bass voices Soph. Zach. 206).
In the χαλινοί the poet has probably in
view some such arrangement for sound
as is described at uv. 450. Translate
literally and the hard-blown guiding gear
in the horse's mouth.—ad xvéov Eble,
ἀπύαν Ῥαϊεγ.---πηδαλίων plural, though

ENTTTA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ.

ἱππικῶν τ᾿ avirveyt
πηδαλίων διὰ στόμα,

πυριβρεμετᾶν yadsvav'—
τί οὖν; ὁ ναύτης dpa μὴ ᾿ς πρῷραν φυγὼν

ET.

19

190

πρύμνηθεν ᾿ηὗρεν μηχανὴν σωτηρίας,
νεὼς καμούσης ποντίων # * ματι;

ΧΟ.

—arnr ἐπὶ δαιμόνων πρόδρομος ἦλθον ἀρ-

ἄντ, α΄. 195

χαῖα βρέτη, πίσυνος θεοῖς.

νιφάδος ὅτ᾽ ὀλοᾶς

νιφομένας βρόμος ἐν πύλαις,

δὴ τότ᾽ ἤρθην φόβῳ

πρὸς μακάρων λιτάς, πόλεως

iy’ ὑπερέχοιεν ἀλκάν.

ET.

200

πύργον στέγειν εὔχεσθε πολέμιον δόρυ.

οὔκουν τάδ᾽ ἔσται πρὸς θεῶν; ἀλλ᾽ οὖν θεοὺς
τοὺς τῆς ἁλούσης ἐκλιπεῖν πόλεως λόγος.

101. πυριγενετᾶν.
ἐκλιπεῖν corr. to ἐκλείπειν,

στόμα is singular, because the bit is com-
pared to the steering apparatus with two
blades (see Lex. s. v.). .

191. πυριβρεμετᾶν: Dindorf. I put
this, which gives far better sense, in the
text, because the gloss which he cites from
Hesychius (xupiBpeuéras ὁ χαλινός' Τιμα-
χίδας δὲ ἤτοι ὁ πυρὶ βρέμων ἣ διὰ πυρὸς
. βρέμοντος yeyovws) seems to have been
an actual record of a double reading
here; it should probably run something
thus: ἸΤιμαχίδας δὲ (¢.¢e. ‘Timachidas
reads’) wupryevéras’ ἤτοι ὁ πυρὶ βρέμων
ἢ ὁ διὰ πυρὸς γεγονώς. As the text of
Hesychius stands the second supposed
interpretation of πυριβρεμέτας is incom-
prehensible. The ‘fire’ is a rhetorical
exaggeration for hot breath: cf. Zum.
138 aruge κατισχναίνουσα, νηδύος πυρί.
πυριγενετᾶν, fire-created, t.e. forged, has
little point.

192. ἐς πρῷραν, to pray to the tute-
lary image or images with which it was
decorated. Hence the parallel. (Paley.)

194. καμούσης. Note the tense ; Jeazen,
over-strained.—cadretpars Wecklein.

194. ἐν xv written in the erasure by m.

204. πόλεως

199. The omission of the past tense
(qv) is irregular. Possibly ἐν is a mistake
for it.

202—204. The order of the words
here is all-important, as the point turns
entirely on the emphasis given in different
ways to πύργον, θεῶν, and θεούς. That
the wall may keep out the foe should be
your prayer. Wiaill not that be the act of
the gods? But as for gods, those of a
taken town desert her citadel, ’tis said.
Eteocles speaks with the same sceptical
irony here as elsewhere. If the town is
to be saved, it must be by means of the
wall and the human defence, and this, he
adds maliciously, will be πρὸς θεῶν (αἰτία
θεοῦ vu.’ 4) after all;—as for the gods,
religion herself explains that when a town
is taken the gods (of the citadel) leave
their posts.—éAews belongs strictly to
ἐκλιπεῖν, with ἁλούσης we must supply
wbdews, or rather γῆς: cf. v. 102 and dg,
380 τοὺς πολισσούχους θεοὺς τοὺς τὴς
ἁλούσης yns. Here and throughout this
scene the πόλις is the πόλις proper or
citadel, which is held by the maidens to

2—2

20 AIZXYAOY

XO.

μήποτ᾽ ἐμὸν κατ᾽ αἰῶνα λίποι θεῶν

στρ. β΄. 205

ἄδε πανάγυρις, μηδ᾽ ἐπίδοιμι τάνδ᾽
ἀστυδρομουμέναν πόλιν καὶ στράτευμ᾽

ἁπτόμενον πυρὶ δαΐῳ.

ET.

μή μοι θεοὺς καλοῦσα βουλεύον Karas"
πειθαρχία γάρ ἐστι τῆς εὐπραξίας

210

μήτηρ, γυνὴ σωτῆρος" ὧδ᾽ ἔχει λόγος.

408. λείποι---λίποι rece.

be especially under the protection of
heaven.—éAeos ἐκλιπεῖν recc. οὖν has
in both places the same force, after
all, or if you come to that.—ékdurdy
(gnomic aorist) with allusion to the mili-
tary use of the word (see Lex. s.v.).—The
scholl. cite the tradition respecting the
departure of the gods of Troy before the
capture, introduced -by Virgil in Aen.
11. 381. Here again Aeschylus has in
mind the events of the Persian war : μᾶλλόν
τι οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι καὶ προθυμότερον ἐξέλιπον
Thy πόλιν, ὡς καὶ τῆς θεοῦ ἀπολελοιπυίης
τὴν ἀκρόπολιν Herod. Vil. 41 (Paley).
Eteocles however, it will be seen, abuses
the doctrine.—The second corrector (m’)
gives οὐκοῦν (sic)...0ewr to the Chorus, and
there are many other proposed emenda-
tions. But the lines are right and clear
enough, if regard is paid to the emphasis,

206. ἐπ-ίδοιμι Live 10 see. |

208. ‘yp. (γράφε or γράφεται) τυφόμε-
νον. οἷον, καιόμενον πολεμίῳ πυρί. Schol.
The two notes should probably be distin-
guished, the first being an emendation,
the second a (correct) explanation. τὸ
στράτευμα τῶν πολεμίων ἁπτόμενον τῆς
πόλεως πυρὶ δαΐῳ, ἤτοι καῖον αὐτήν Schol.
γές. followed by some editors; but ἀπ-
τόμενον is not ἅπτον. Others emend,
eg. Prien, καὶ στρατοῦ δαπτομέναν πυρὶ
datov. But the Chorus, in the naive
simplicity of their religious feeling, mean
exactly what they say. The gods, that is,
the ancient wooden fpérn themselves, are
the στράτευμα which defend the citadel
(the sarcasm of Eteocles implies as much),
and the maidens pray that they may

never see them burnt, as they assuredly
would be if the πόλις was taken. This
feeling respecting the actual images is
well illustrated by a schol. on v. 291 et-
pnras δὲ καὶ ἐν ΞΙοανηφόροις Σοφοκλέους ws
οἱ θεοὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιλίονυ φέρουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν
Guwy τὰ ἑαυτών ξόανα (wooden images),
εἰδότες ὅτι ἁλίσκεται. The burning of the
sacred places of Athens including the
acropolis was one of the most terrible
features of the Persian war (Herod. VIII.
31 foll.). The Athenian spectators would
remember with thankfulness that their
own βρέτη, or at least the most precious
Bpéras of Athena, had been previously
removed. The corrector who suggested
τυφόμενον seems to have suspected a
direct allusion to the taking of the acro-
polis, whose human defenders, though
not burnt, were ‘smoked’, the Persians
having attacked the wooden defences
with ignited arrows.

209—11. If religion is to be invoked,
there is religion for the obedience of
woman. The goodman Σωτήρ, his wife
Πειθαρχία, and her daughter Evmpatia
are personages in the allegorical story
(σωματοποιεῖ τὰ πράγματα Schol.) and
would be written by us with capitals.
yuu? σωτῆρος. λείπει Διός" γυνὴ (wife)
Διὸς σωτῆρος Schol.; there are examples
of the ellipse (see Lex. s. σωτήρ) but it
is not necessary to suppose that this
particular fable identified Σωτήρ with
Ζεύς. The quaintness of γυνὴ σωτῆρος,
which amuses the speaker, is a cha-
racteristic not to be improved away.
-- γονῆς σωτῆρος Hermann; μόνης σωτῆρος

- rae |

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. 21

XO.

ἔστι θεοῦ δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἰσχὺς καθυπερτέρα"

avr. β΄.

πολλάκι δ᾽ ἐν κακοῖσι τὰν ἀμήχανον
κἀκ χαλεπᾶς δύας ὕπερθ᾽ ὀμμάτων

κρημναμενᾶν νεφελᾶν ὀρθοῖ,
ἀνδρῶν τάδ' ἐστί, σφάγια καὶ «χρηστήρια

ET.

215

θεοῖσιν ἔρδειν, πολεμίων πειρωμένοις"
σὸν δ' αὖ τὸ συγᾶν καὶ μένειν εἴσω δόμων.

ΧΟ.

ET.

215. κριμναμένᾶν νεφέλᾶν.

Oberdick ; and see Wecklein Appendix.
—The other explanations of the Schol.
σωστικῆς---οἰκείως ἔχουσα πρὸς τὸ σώζεσ-
θαι are consistent with the Ms. reading.

212. Man is strong but God is
stronger.

213. τὰν; so also Marcellinus, citing
this passage (Vit. Thucyd. § 5).—xaxot-
ow τὸν ἀμήχανον Canter, from the schol.
τὸν μὴ δυνάμενον ἑαυτῳ μηχανήσασθαι,
which however does not imply that the
masculine was in the text, for on τί μέλ-
λομεν ἀγάστονοι (v.98) he writes τί ἑστῶ-
τες στενάζομεν, though the textis obviously
feminine, explaining the expression without
reference to the gender. And note that
if the Chorus are made to use the mascu-
line, the answer of Eteocles (ἀνδρῶν τάδ᾽
ἐστι) loses some point. The correction
must stand on metre only. See 42-
penaix.

214. καὶ χαλεπᾶς ὑπέρ re Marcellinus.

215. ὀρθοῖ. σαοῖ Hermann, ὁδοῖ Ober-
dick on metrical grounds. See however
Apbendix. κρημναμενᾶν vededay- Her-
mann.

216. τὰ εἰς χρῆσιν (enquiry) καὶ θυσίαν
θύματα Schol. σφάγια are properly of-
ferings of blood, χρηστήρια parts of the
victims used for divination.

217. πειρωμένοις, dative of reference or
of the persons interested, which has been
well called ‘‘the beginning of a dative

διὰ θεῶν πόλιν νεμόμεθ᾽ ἀδάματον,
δυσμενέων δ᾽ ὄχλον πύργος ἀποστέγει.
τίς τάδε νέμεσις στυγεῖ; |

Ν n 4 A έν e
οὔτοι φθονῶ σοι δαιμόνων τιμᾶν γένος

217. ἕρδειν.

στρ. γ΄.
220

210. νεμόμεσθ᾽ ἀδάμαντον. 511. τί.

absolute that did not ripen ” (Gildersleeve,
Pindar, pref. p..xciii.); literally, ‘for
those who are trying force with the foe,
it is the men’s part, etc.’ The voice of
πειρωμένοις expresses mutual relation, as
in λοιδοροῦμαι, ἅπτεσθαι etc.; each of the
combatants πειρᾷ τοῦ ἑτέρου.

218. τῇ γυναικί Schol., whence Weck-
lein suggests σοὶ for σὸν. But σόν ἐστι
τῇ γυναικί would be good Greek. See on
v. 628.

210. νεμόμεθ᾽ rece. ἀδάματον Pauw.

a1g—21. By divine help we hold im-
pregnable our citadel, while the wall doth
bar the throng of foemen. Why doth
jealousy mislike this?—Why not, that
is, have both protections, the divine aid
which we take for our portion (νεμόμεθα)
here, and the external defence on which
you rely? τάδε: this partition. Note the
correlation of νρεμόμεθα and νέμεσις,
which has its strict meaning, jealousy of
improper distribution.—7’ for δ᾽ Weil,
which would be necessary if διὰ θεῶν
applied equally to both clauses; but in
fact there is an antithesis——rlsg Heath,
for metre; literally, what sort of jealousy
ts tt which mislikes this?

222. δαιμόγων γένος the ‘ god-kind’ or
spiritual sort. δαίμων is less dignified
than θεός, and the addition of γένος aids
the contemptuous liberality of the per-
mission.

22 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πολίτας μὴ κακοσπλάγχνους τίθης,
εὔκηλος ἴσθι μηδ᾽ ἄγαν ὑπερφοβοῦ.

ΧΟ.

ποταίνιον κλύουσα πάτωγον ἄμμιγα,

ἄντ. Υ. 225

ταρβοσύνῳ φόβῳ τάνδ᾽ ἐς ἀκρόπολιν,

τίμιον ὅδος, ἱκόμαν.

ET.

μὴ νῦν, ἐὰν θνήσκοντας ἢ τετρωμένους

πύθησθε, κωκυτοῖσιν ἁρπαλίζετε'

τούτῳ γὰρ “Apns βόσκεται, φόνῳ βροτῶν.
καὶ μὴν ἀκούω γ᾽ ὑτπικῶν dovaypatov.

ΧΟ.

230

4232. τιθεῖς---τιθῆς m’.

223. τίθης. The form τιθεῖς though
common in the Mss. is not Attic: see
Lex. s.v. But the tense is right, and
should not be changed, as in all the
texts, into the subjunctive τιθῇς. ws is
not final, but modal, like ὅπως in Eur.
Med, 330 ὅπως ἂν παραστῶσιν τύχαι, ace
cording as (i.e. so far as, provided that)
Sortune may attend it; ws...ph is according
as...mot, and is equivalent to the Eng-
lish ‘if only...not’, ‘except’, or ‘pro-
vided that...not’ (cf. dre μή except when,
ὅτι μή except that etc. and see Kiihner Gr.
Gramm. ὃ 512, 4 Ὁ). Translate Jf only
thou disheartenest not thy fedlow-citizens,
be easy and have no needless fear. The
pres. indicative (as with ore μὴ) im-
plies that they are doing the prohibited
thing. Eteocles urges still, but in a
gentler form, the same point as before—
it is the maidens who are causing what
danger there is. The final mood (shat
thou mayest not dtshearten) would not
suit v. 224: εὔκηλος ἴσθι is not δέ quiet
but δέ easy: εὔκηλος refers to internal
feelings not to external behaviour.—Note
the stress on πολίτας (displaced from its
natural position after the negative) in
antithesis to δαιμόνων.

425---. On the metre and metrical
corrections see Appendix. — rroralwmov.
The emphasis on this word new, fresh
implies that with custom their terror is
diminishing, and marks the transition to
a different mood. See next note.—axpé-
πτόλιν Porson.

228. www belongs to the hypothetical
as well as to the principal clause, being
displaced for emphasis. ‘You may now
hear something strange; do not fall now
into the same folly’.—v»u» edd. here and
in v. 232; but there is no proof that Aes-
chylus used the enclitic νυν with a long ὕ,
these being the only two supposed ex-
amples. Moreover the sense in both
places points to the temporal »ῦν.

229. dpwad({ere: this verb is cited
only from here and from Zum. 984 μηδὲ
πιοῦσα κόνις μέλαν αἷμα πολιτᾶν δι’ ὀργὰν
ποινὰς ἀντιφόνους ἄτας ἁρπαλίσαι πόλεως.
The passages are obscure and not easy
to reconcile, but the points of contact
are clearly πιοῦσα and βόσκεται. The
analogy of ἁρπαλέος and ἁρπαλιμός sug-
gests a connexion with gluttony, and we
may conjecture for the primary meaning
fo behave gluttonously, which, according
to the circumstances, may be either
greedily or fastidiously. The first can-
not be applied here except ironically ;
the second would suit very well. Jf now
ye hear of men dying or wounded, make
no fastidious outcry; for this ts Ares?
meat, even the blood of men. The form
may be either transitive or intransitive
(cf. ὑβρίζω), here probably intransitive.
The relation of these words to the
stem dpray- (ἁρπάζω) is uncertain, and
must at any rate be remote.

231. καὶ μὴν ἀκούω ye. There! 7 do
hear ; it is no fancy.

ENITA ΕΠῚ OHBAS. 23

thou really hearest, be not too hearing.
Cf. vv. 184—s.—vuy edd. but the tem-
poral νῦν is actually required, and see on
Uv. 228.

233. πόλισμα may be either (1) from
πολίζω to build a city, a synonym of πόλις,
or (2) from πολίζυ to go round and
round, revolve about (cf. ἀναπολίζω,
πόλος, πολεύω etc.), a revolution or roll.
Etymologically the two words are iden-
tical, πόλισμα (ΞΞ- πόλις) being properly a
ctrcle. The second gives a far better
sense here, there comes a low sound from
the earth, as tt were the roll of them
going round, and πόλισμα is thus brought
into line with φρύαγμα in v. 231 and
ἀραγμὸς in v. 235. With πόλισμα for-
tress γῆθεν cannot be fairly translated.
A schol. sees this difficulty and tries to
avoid it by taking πόλισμα as object to
κυκλουμένων, of course making στένει γῆ-
θεν impersonal. ὡς κυκλούντων τὴν πόλιν
τῶν πολεμίων σείεται, φησίν, ἡ ἡμετέρα
γῆ. (This perhaps suggested the reading
πόλισμα... .κυκλοῦνται in v. 113, where see
note.) We have διήκει πόλιν στόνος...

στένει πέδον in v. 883, but that and the ἡ

parallel passages have no resemblance to
this and do not affect the question.

234. ἔμ. An extremely rare elision,
except at the beginning of the verse.
The two regular positions of ἐμέ, which
of course has the emphasis, are at the
beginning and at the end.

ET. μὴ viv ἀκούουσ᾽ ἐμφανῶς ἄκον᾽ ἄγαν.
ΧΟ. στένει πόλισμα γῆθεν ὡς κυκλουμένων.
ET. οὐκοῦν ἔμ᾽ ἀρκεῖ τῶνδε βουλεύειν πέρι.
ΧΟ. δδέδοικ᾽---ἀρωγμὸς δ᾽ ἐν πύλαις ὀφέλλεται. 235
ET. ov σῦγα' μηδὲν τῶνδ᾽ ἐρεῖς κατὰ πτόλιν;
ΧΟ. ὦ ξυντέλεια, μὴ προδῷς πυργώματα.
ET. οὐκ ἐς φθόρον συγῶσ᾽ ἀνασχήσῃ τάδε;
ΧΟ. θεοὶ πολῖται, μή με δουλείας τυχεῖν.
ET. αὐτὴ σὺ δουλοῖς κἀμὲ καὶ πᾶσαν πτόλιν. 240
ΧΟ. ὦ παγκρατὲς Ζεῦ, τρέψον εἰς ἐχθροὺς βέλος.
238. φόρον οἵ φόνον---φ θόρον mm’.
232. wv ἀκούουσ᾽ ἐμφανῶς now that 235. Note the adversative δὲ διέ,

δέδοικα is the beginning of a reply to
the previous verse, which is cut short by
a fresh alarm.

236. Nay! Hush! Walt thou tell
naught of it in the town? ironically for
‘Your warning is somewhat super-
fluous’. Cf. v. 234.—The punctuation
of M (as above) seems necessary both
to grammar and sense. If the verse be
taken as one sentence (so many edd.)
the position of σῦγα is surely prepos-
terous. There is no such difficulty in
Eur. Or. 1022 οὐ ot, ἀφεῖσα rods γυναι-
xelous γόους, στέρξεις τὰ κρανθέντα;

237. ἔἐνυντέλεια, company of ξυντελεῖς,
$.¢. those united in the office (τέλος) of
φύλακες (cf. v. 152). The Scholl. well
cite Hom. 77. το. 56 ἐλθεῖν és φυλάκων
ἱερὸν τέλος.

239. πολῦται adjective; ‘gods who
are our fellow-citizens ’.

240. δουλοῖς: treat as slaves, because
none but slaves would submit to the
interference of women.—«xai σὲ Wunder-

lich.

241. βέλος γῦν τὸν worenov' βέλος δὲ
way τὸ βαλλόμενον Schol.—rightly in the
main point, that βέλος is metaphorical
not literal (τὴν δουλείαν or τὴν ἅλωσιν
would have been a better interpretation).
The meaning is ‘let thy chastisement fall
on thine enemies, not on thy friends’.
els ἐχθροὺς 2.c. μὴ els φίλους, not specially
of the Argive enemy.

24 AIZXYAOY
ET. @ Zed, γυναικῶν οἷον ὥπασας γένος.
ΧΟ. μοχθηρόν, ὥσπερ ἄνδρας, ὧν ἁλῷ πόλις.
ET. παλινστομεῖς αὖ θυγγάνουσ᾽ ἀγαλμάτων ;
ΧΟ. ἀψυχίᾳ γὰρ γλῶσσαν ἁρπάξει φόβος. 245
ET. αἰτουμένῳ μοι κοῦφον εἰ δοίης τέλος.
ΧΟ. λέγοις av ὡς τάχιστα, καὶ τάχ᾽ εἴσομαι.
ET. σίγησον, ὦ τάλαινα, μὴ φίλους φόβει.
ΧΟ. σιγῶ" σὺν ἄλλοις πείσομαι τὸ μόρσιμον.
ΕἼΤ. τοῦτ᾽ ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνων τοὔπος αἱροῦμαι σέθεν. 250
καὶ πρός γε τούτοις, ἑκτὸς οὖσ᾽ ὠγαλμάτων,
249. σπείσομαι corr. by m’, 251. ἐκτὸς.
242. ὥπασας created, Cf. v. 479. παλινστομεῖν before, but on the contrary,

érager in Aeschylus is used always to
denote the ortginator or author of a
thing; see especially Zum. 625 Ζεὺς
χρησμὸν race (to Apollo) φράζειν ᾽Ορέσ-
Τῇ, perhaps by special modification of
the sense gtve. The uses of the word
'*are however not very satisfactorily con-
nected, and possibly more than one stem
has contributed to it,

243. Miserable, as also men, if ther
town be taken. ὧν ἁλῷ πόλις qualifies
both parts of the sentence.

244. παλινστομεῖς. δυσφημεῖς Schol.
and the context certainly points to this
meaning. Note however that the words
are not strictly synonymous. Among the
numerous compounds of wadw-, there is
no case of wadw- for duvc-. παλίμφαμος
indeed is cited as such, but only on the
authority of Eur. Jon 1096 (where it
has its natural sense reversed, recanted)
and of ancient lexicographers, whose
accuracy cannot be trusted. By analogy
παλινστομεῖν should mean ‘to contradict,
retort’: cf. παλίμφαμος, παλίγγλωσσος
etc., with κακοστομεῖν, πολυστομεῖν etc.:
and probably this was the strict sense;
though in relation to a religious matter
to cross or contradict the prayer is much
the same thing as δυσφημεῖν.

_ ab. In English this must be rendered
not by again but by xow again. It im-
plies not that they have been guilty of τὸ

that their ill-omened speech is a new of-
fence, a fresh instance of their perversity.
Cf. Eur. Med. 306 σὺ δ᾽ αὖ φοβεῖ με, and
now to thee I seem terrible, where see the
editor’s note. The παλιστομία lies in
the words ὧν adq πόλις, and their possi-
ble application to the present moment.
Translate—And now thou blasphemest,
with thy hand on the holy gods?

245. ἀψυχίᾳ causal, decause of my
Jaintness; on the word see v. 370. dp-
πάζει snatches, surprises.

246. Either the sentence expresses
a wish, or (better) ἐστίν is supplied
with κοῦῴον rédkos—what I ask is easily
given and done. τέλος accomplishment.

247. τάχ᾽ εἴσομαι. J shall know
anon (‘whether I can easily do it’, not
‘what it is’), Amglicd ‘I will see’.—rér’
εἴσομαι Meineke, comparing Soph. 0.7.
1§17, but the situations are not precisely
the same.

251. ἑκτὸς οὖσα: ἐχομένη, but with
more emphasis on the passive side of the
relation, deing in hold of: for the form
cf. πιστός, μεμπτός, πλανητός from πεί-
θομαι, μέμφομαι, πλανῶμαι, and for the
construction with the genitive (parallel
to ἔχεσθαι) cf. that of μεμπτὸς εἶναι with
the dative in Soph. 7rach. 446. See also
the next note.—The use of ἐχομένη in the
schol. on v. 244, δυσφημεῖς καίτοι τῶν
ἀγαλμάτων ἐχομένη, compared with the

eee JOD ene ae
°

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. ~ 25

εὔχου τὰ κρείσσω ξυμμάχους εἶναι θεούς.

κἀμῶν ἀκούσασ᾽ εὐγμάτων, ἔπειτα σὺ

ὁλολυγμὸν, ἱρὸν ὃν μόνῃ, παιάνισον,

“Ἑλληνικὸν νόμισμα θυστάδος βοῆς 255
θάρσος φίλοις λύουσα, πολέμιον φόβον.

254. ἱερὸν εὐμενῆ.

reference to it in the schol. on w 250,
ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἄλλων δυσφήμων εἴρηκας, seems to
show that the annotators actually had
ἑκτός.---ἐκτὸς, the present reading of M,
has been rendered by having quitted the
images; but ἐκτός (out of) has no such
meaning, neither would the maidens
quit the statues in order to pray.

252. τὰ κρείσσω (1) offer thy more
prevailing prayers, ‘stronger’, because
the virgins are lawfully in contact with
the gods and under their special protec-
tion. Hence the point of éxrds οὖσ᾽
ἀγαλμάτων : see next note. Or (2) che
better prayer, that the gods will fight
with us (emphasis on ξυμμάχους), not
merely that they will protect us. But this
distinction is rather forced.

254. Do thou, whose sacred privilege tt
ts, follow my prayerwith theaccustomedcry.
ἱρὸν ὃν μόνῃ (σοὶ) supplied from the em-
phatic od: Jiterally, ἐξ being a thing con-
secrated (set apart, reserved) fo thee alone;
for the ὀλολυγμός was a γυναικεῖος νόμος
Ag. 599, belonging to women only, not
to men, and therefore not to Eteocles:
see Lex. 5. Ὁ. The neuter is used because
τὸ ὀλολύζειν rather than ὀλολνγμός would
be the general description of the act.
For σύ in the sense of thou, as woman,
cf. σὸν in v. 218. The point is the same
as in v. 251, that the maidens, if they will
but behave reasonably and decently, have
their own proper services to render for
the common cause. --- ὀλολυγμὸν ἱερόν"
διέστειλεν τὸν ὀλολυγμὸν τοῦ παιῶνος.
ὥσπερ γὰρ μόνῃ τῇ ᾿Αθήνᾳ δαίμονι οὔσῃ
“πολεμικῇ, ὀλολύζουσι (he distinguishes the
ὀλολυγμὸς from the common paean: for
to Athena only, as being exclusively god-
dess of war, they raise the dAvAvypés),

rots δὲ ἄλλοις θεοῖς Καιωνίζουσιν. ὁ γοῦν
ποιητής φησιν ἐπὶ τῶν Towiddwy, ‘al δ᾽
ὀλολυγῇ πᾶσαι ᾿Αθήνῃ χεῖρας ἀνέσχον ᾽
(Hom. 22). 6. 301), καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ᾿Ελληνίδων
“ai δ᾽ ὀλόλυξαν θυγατέρες τε νυοί re” (Od.
3. 450)Schol. This valuable note, which
has no bearing on the present text of M,
shows that the author read as above; his
explanation is, that μόνῃ must refer to
some special deity, whom, on the sup-
posed evidence of his Homeric passages,
he identified as Athena.—eduer9 in M, a
useless epithet, as indeed is ἱερὸν too, may
be an accidental error, but is more
probably a deliberate conjecture. —tpéy,
Dindorf. From the rhythm of Aeschylus
it is likely that the pronunciation at all
events was dissyllabic.

a55—6. Discharging the good Greek
custom of the religious note, which cheers
the friend and scares the foe. λύονσα
from λύειν (Latin solvere) to pay or dis-
charge a payment to which one is bound ;
see Lex. 5. uv. The metaphor, which is
further carried out in νόμισμα, with its
familiar suggestion of currency, current
coinage, marks the lawful obligation of
the service, which Eteocles demands, in
contrast to an irregular and disorderly
manner of supplication. This contrast is
the theme of the whole passage. θάρσος
φίλοις, see v. 167. πολέμιον the adj. in
the sense of the objective genitive πολε-
μίων, which it is perhaps not necessary to
substitute.—This explanation, joining λύ-
ovea with the whole clause, not with
φόβον only (in the sense of ‘removing our
fear of the enemy’) is cited, though not
understood, by a Schol.: πολέμιον δὲ
φόβον τὴν ὁλολυγὴν ἐξηγήσατο [ev τῷ
“ἐλύουσα πολέμιον φόβον᾽Ἴ. The words

26 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

ἐγὼ δὲ χώρας τοῖς πολισσούχοις θεοῖς
πεδιονόμοις τε κἀγορᾶς ἐπισκόποις
Δίρκης τε πηγαῖς---οὔδατ᾽ ᾿Ισμηνοῦ λέγω----

εὖ ξυντυχόντων καὶ πόλεως σεσφσμένης,

260

μήλοισιν αἱμάσσοντας ἑστίας θεῶν,

489. οὐδ᾽ ἀπ᾿ ἱσμινοῦ.

in brackets are evidently not from the
original author of the view, for they are
contradictory to it; if λύουσα be joined
specially with φόβον, φόβον is not=rh»
ὀλολυγήν. The view itself is well worth
consideration, seeing the acknowledged
difficulties of the common interpretation
as given below, and is superior to it,
both in simplicity of construction and in
rhythm, a pause after the second foot
being so rare that it does not occur once
in the play. The received interpretation
is also indicated by the schol. διὰ τῶν
τοιούτων εὐχῶν λύουσα τὸν τῶν πολεμίων
φόβον. The construction of v. 256 must
then be explained either (1) by supplying
from Avovea by a sort of seugma a parti-
ciple of the opposite sense (ποιοῦσα) with
θάρσος, or (2) by taking θάρσος φίλοις as
itself equivalent to θαρσύνουσα τοὺς φί-
λους. Either way the form of expression
would be unnatural.

257. πολισσούχοιβ from πόλις in the
narrower sense citadel, the πολισσοῦχοι,
πεδιονόμοι, and dy. émiox. being three
classes, distinguished by place. It is
possible also, but less consistent with the
general use of πολιοῦχος, to give it the
large sense gods of the city, including the
other two.—For the local distribution of
gods cf. Ag. go, Supp. 1031 (Paley).

259. otSara the Boeotian form of the
classical ὕδατα, representing the dialectic
pronunciation of the ν (cf. οὔδωρ-ὕδωρ,
σούν-σύν, κοῦμα-κῦμα (Corinna), etc. Kiih-
ner, I. § 5. 3). The local form in the local
name is a picturesque touch; and that it
was actually used by Aeschylus the ms
scarcely leaves room to doubt ; the error
and the exact form of it might have been
predicted.—Aé€yw marks, as usual, an ex-

planation of a term, cf. v. 476. Of the
widely varying legends respecting the
water-gods of Thebes, the simplest and
probably earliest makes the chief river
(ἸσμηνόΞ) parent of the smaller Δίρκη and
Στροφίη (Callim. Aym. Del. 77), which
would account for a description of the
fountain Dirce as ὕδατα Ἰσμηνοῦ. But
the language here does not imply any
special relation between the streams; it
is the river of Thebes as a whole, the
gift of Dirce or Ismenus indifferently,
which, as the context shows, is in-
voked as πηγαὶ Δίρκης. In fact oddar’
Ἰσμηνοῦ λέγω is added expresslyto explain
the large meaning in which Δίρκης πηγαί
is used. So in v. 294 the ὕδωρ Διρκαῖον
has the same representative sense. So

also in Soph. Amz. τοῦ the Theban.

maidens describe the day as dawning
‘over the Dircaean stream’ (Διρκαίων
ὑπὲρ ῥεέθρων μολοῦσα), 1.5. over the
Ismenus, for we may presume that the
day did not dawn in the west. And
generally in poetry Διρκαῖος signifies
Theban, so that Virgil (Zc/. 11. 24) can
even speak of Amphion Dircaeus—a
curiously inappropriate epithet, if referred
specially to Dirce. It will be noticed that
except the bare mention of ‘ Amphion’s
tomb’ in v. 315, this play contains no
allusion to the story of the wicked Dirce
popularized in later and modern literature
by Euripides, Ovid, and the‘ Farnese’ bull,
nor to any of the personagesin the ‘ Am-
phion’ legend.—ddara τ᾽ ᾿Ισμηνοῦ (W.
Dindorf) is little less close to the Ms,
but bad in rhythm and not consistent
with the usage of λέγω.

261. αἱμάσσοντας. Regularly con-
tinued the sentence would run ἐπεύχομαι

~— FT,

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAS. 27

ταυροκτονοῦντας θεοῖσιν, ὧδ᾽ ἐπεύχομαι
θήσειν τροπαῖα' πολεμίων δ᾽ ἐσθήμασι
λάφυρα δάων δουρίπληχθ᾽ ἁγνοῖς δόμοις

στέψω πρὸ ναῶν πολεμίων ἐσθήματα.

26ς

τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐπεύχον μὴ φιλοστόνως θεοῖς,
μηδ᾽ ἐν ματαίοις κἀγρίοις ποιφύγμασιν'
οὐ γάρ TL κἄλλων μὴ φύγῃς τὸ μόρσιμον.
ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐπανδρὰς ὃξ ἐμοὶ σὺν ἑβδόμῳ

265. πολεμίων δ᾽.

πολίτας θήσειν τροπαῖα, which is changed
for the more vigorous personal form. ὧδε
either (1) ¢#us; resuming the participles
and marking the transition; or much
better (2) 4ere, that is in the citadel and
on its temples, to which he points.

263. The Scholl. note rporata as an
‘anachronism’, the expression (and the
thing in the proper sense of ‘trophies’
of arms erected in the field of battle) not
belonging really to the heroic age which
Aeschylus describes.

263—265. ἐσθήμασιν ἐσθήματα dva-
θήσω πρὸ τῶν ναῶν τὰ λάφυρα Schol.
The author of this note (1) found πολε-
flow ἐσθήματα (not δ᾽ ἐσθήματα) in νυ.
265, and (2) thought that both ἐσθή-
μασι and ἐσθήματα were genuine and
explicable. His explanation (which I
accept) is given in the word ἀνα-θήσω.
There is a grim play, such as Aeschylus
employs (see vv. 898, 917, 923 etc.), and
here at least extremely effective, upon the
two senses of ἐσθήμασι (garments) and
ἐσθήματα things put in or among, from
τίθημι: cf. θῆμα, ἀναθῆμα etc., and note
the θήσειν in the text. The Argive hel-
mets and breastplates will be doubly πολε-
plow ἐσθήματα, both as worn by them and
as placed by them, according to the humour
of Eteocles, in the temples and among the
former trophies, some of which are no
doubt visible on the stage. The dative
ἐσθήμασι depends loosely upon ἐσθήματα,
in a manner resembling, as the Schol.
saw, such phases as φόνῳ φόνος death
upon death, aras ἅταις woe upon woe etc. :

268. κάλλων corr. to μᾶλλον.

269. ἐπὶ ἄνδρας.

δόμοις depends as possess. dative on στέψω
πρὸ vawy. It is for the sake of this play
of meanings that the panoplies are allow-
ed to be termed ἐσθήματα, otherwise, as
the Lexicon will show, a strange word
for them. In common parlance a robe
would be ἔσθημα, but not a_breast-
plate.—vasyv in the proper sense of cé/a,
the inner temple or shrine. στέψω J will
hang (in row), cf. v. 5ο.---δουρίπληκτα
spear-battered. δουρίπηκτα L. Dindorf,
supposing the arms to be fixed upon
spears; but note oréyw.—Upon the
above passage (257—-26s) there has been
a μεγίστη προσβολή of criticism. The
chief points of attack are the repetition
in 263—265 and the irregularity of
261—262. The first, I submit, is ne-
cessary when rightly understood; and
the second, regarded dramatically, has
a more than sufficient justification.

267. ἀγρίοις savage, worthy of un-
disciplined peasants (people of the d-ypos),
not πολῖται. Cf. vu. 169, 258 etc.

268. κἄλλων 1.4. καὶ ἄλλων, or as a
prose writer would have said καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων, ‘the fate of others also’ or the
general fate: cf.v.249 σὺν ἄλλοις πείσομαι
τὸ μόρσιμον. This, which is said to be
the original reading of M, is more to the
point than μάλλον and less likely to
have been an arbitrary correction.

269. ἐπανδρὰς aor. part. from ἐπανα-
διδράσκω, L will haste back again etc.
Eteocles now hurries to resume the pre-
parations commenced after v. 78and inter-
rupted by the conduct of the maidens at

28 AIZXYAOY

ἀντηρέτας ἐχθροῖσι τὸν μέγαν τρόπον

270

εἰς ἑπτατειχεῖς ἐξόδους τάξω μολών,
πρὶν ἀγγέλους σπερχνούς τε καὶ ταχυρρόθους
λόγους ἱκέσθαι καὶ φλέγειν χρεΐας ὕπο.

ΧΟ.
γείτονες δὲ καρδίας

v. 168. For the form cf. ἐπαντέλλω,
ἐπανδιπλοίζω, etc.—The original author
of the division and accentuation in M
probably intended to lay stress on ἄνδρας,
—‘to meet men’ being the duty of man
(ἐγὼ) as distinguished from that of woman,
which is to pray—and would join ἐπ᾽
ἄνδρας as adverb with the whole phrase
ἀντηρέτας ἐχθροῖσι τάξω. This would be
a possible, though forced, expression.
To join ἐπὶ with τάξω or to construe
it separately, with the sense ἐπιτάξω ἐχ-
Opois, is impossible; ἐπ᾽ ἄνδρας μολών
might perhaps have a meaning, but the
words cannot be brought together.—
ἐπάρχους Canter.

270. τὸν μέγαν τρόπον is constructed,
as the rhythm indicates, with ἀντηρέτας,
which by its verbal element admits an
adverb; champions to match the attack
of the foe on this great scale. The resis-
tance must correspond with the extent
of the μεγίστη προσβολή (v. 28), which is
now to be made on all the gates at once.

271. Wl appoint at my return to
the seven portals of our wall. The plan
of Eteocles is that which is substantially
carried out in the sequel: he will select
his six champions and return with them
to the Acropolis, to await his scouts;
in the interval he will assign the place
of each. μολών-Ξ δεῦρο πάλιν μολών, as
often, ¢.g. Ag. 34, 357, 1224, 1397. εἰς
ἐξόδους is strictly εἰς τὸ ἐξιέναι rather than
εἰς πύλας.--- Το join μολών with εἰς ἐξόδους
would be contrary to the intention, as
shown in the sequel, and not consistent
.with the preposition els,

272—273. The construction here is
doubtful. The simplest prima facie is

μέλει, φόβῳ δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπνώσσει κέαρ'

στρ. α΄.

275

πρὶν ἱκέσθαι ἀγγέλους τε σπερχνοὺς καὶ
ταχυρρόθους λόγους, but those who have
paid attention to Aeschylean style and
rhythm will hardly approve this. Two
others are better; (2) πρὶν λόγους (news),
ἀγγέλους ow. K. ταχ., ἱκέσθαι κιτιλ. the
λόγοι being personified; and (3) to make
λόγους depend on the whole expression
ἱκέσθαι καὶ préyew (quasi ἱκομένους φλέ-
yew), which is the easier as ἱκέσθαι
λόγους simply, for és λόγους, would scarce-
ly be impossible: cf. Soph. 51. 315 és
λόγους τοὺς σοὺς ἱκέσθαι with id. O. Z. 781
ὧν (2.¢. ἐκείνων ἃ) ἱκόμην, ἄτιμόν με ἐξέπεμ-
We dismissed me unrewarded with that for
which I came: this has the great advan-
tage of giving a clear meaning to φλέγειν
—ere messengers, impatient and loud with
haste, bring to debate the heat of urgency.
If (1) or (2) be adopted, it is difficult
to say whether φλέγειν is transitive
or intransitive, and what is the subject or
object of it.

274. On the metres see Appendix.
μέλει : a Schol. explains this as a formula

οὗ .submission, for μέλει proc 7 heed

or attend to what is said: μέλει μοι,
φησίν, dv εἶπεν ᾿Ετεοκλῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐν ἐμοὶ
φόβος οὐκ ἠρεμεῖν με ποιεῖ. A use ap-
parently similar occurs in Pers. 1059 ΞΕ.
βόα νυν ἀντίδουπα μοι. ΧΟ. μέλειν πάρ-
εστι, δέσποτα. This explanation seems
the best, and at least accounts for the ad-
versative δὲ, which is against the render-
ing ‘my heart is anxious and will not
sleep’: Rhes. 770 μελούσῃ καρδίᾳ λήξας
ὕπνον, which is cited for this by Liddell
and Scott, may have been influenced by
reminiscence of this passage, but there is
no very close resemblance.

ETTTA ΕΠῚ OHBA2. 29

μέριμναι ξωπυροῦσι τάρβος

τὸν ἀμφιτειχῆ λεών'

δράκοντα δ᾽ ὥς τις τέκνων

ὕπερ, δέδοικεν λεχέ-
wy δυσευνάτορας ἃ
πάντρομος πελειάς.

280

τοὶ μὲν γὰρ ποτὶ πύργους

᾿πανδημεὶ πανομιλεὶ
279. δέδοικε λεχέων.

277. τὸν λεών objective acc. to ζω-
πυροῦσι τάρβος, in the sense of ἀναγκά-
ζουσι pe φοβεῖσθαι.

278. «“πώ as one fears a snake for her
young, so doth it, poor trembling dove,
Sear the ravishers of our bed, literally fear
Jor our bed the ravishers. Both τέκνων
and λεχέων depend on ὑπέρ : cf. vv. 319,
407. The subject of δέδοικεν is καρδία,
my heart; ἡ καρδία pov, φησί, δέδοικε τὸν
πολιορκοῦντα στρατὸν ὡς δράκοντα ὑπὲρ
τῶν νεοσσῶν πελειάς, schol. on v. 278.
The reading of M, with the erasure filled
‘in the most obvious way, gives a perfect
sense. On the metre see Appendtx.—
Four slight variations or.conjectures may
be more or less clearly traced in the
scholia.—(1) δέδοικ᾽ ἐνλεχέων (τέκνων), tn
the nest: οἷον τῶν ἐν ὡρισμένῳ τόπῳ μενόν-
των καὶ μήπω δυναμένων ἵπτασθαι, where
note that the artificial explanation clearly
points to a compound of é&-. The spell-
ing ἐνλεχέων may represent the genitive
either of ἐλλεχής or of ἐλλέχειος, both
correct forms (cf. ἐντελής, ὑπώρειος) : δέδοικ᾽
may be either δέδοικα or δέδοικε. Between
this and M there is nothing to choose
either in MS. authority, for the letters are
exactly the same, or in sense. —(2) Aexalov
Lachmann: from λεχέων (λεχαίων ὃ). τούτ-
ἐστι, νεμομένων ἐπὶ τῆς καλιᾶς. ταύτην
γὰρ λέχος εἶπεν. This however may also
be referred to ἐλλεχέων; and the false
form λεχαῖος (Apoll. Rhod.) is insufficient-
ly attested.—(3) δυσευνήτωρ (?): from δυσ-
εὐυνήτορας δὲ δυσευνήτους (δυσευνήτωρ δὲ
δυσεύνητος), διὰ τὸν φόβον τοῦ δράκοντος.

280. δευσευνητορας9 ἁπάν.

281. Τρομοσ.

This however is a mere error.—(4) πάν-
τροῷος: πάντροφον δὲ τὴν πελειάδα φησίν,
ὅτι πάντα τὰ ὄρνεα ἅπαξ τοῖ ἔτους τίκτει,
ἡ δὲ περιστερὰ ἀεί, This variation is also
cited by Tzetzes (ad Lycophr. 87) and
Eustathius (ad Hom. p. 1062, 7). πάν»-
τρομοὸς is probably a conjecture, and as
such plausible. It would however be
quite in the manner of Aeschylus to call

the heart wdyrpogos πελειάς in such a

context as this with an intentional am-
biguity, the actual dove being πάντροφος
in relation to her young, and the heart,
the metaphorical dove, also πάντροφος be-

-cause, according to the language familiar

in the poets, it τρέφει τὸ δέος. The
English poor brooding dove will in that case
exactly reproduce the meaning. The pre-
fix παν- whether in πάντροφος or in πάντρο-
μος merely emphasizes the notion following
as in πάλλευκος etc.—d. All recent texts
omit the article on metrical grounds, but
to the disadvantage of the sense. See
Appendix.—bdpaxovras ws Bothe, making
δράκοντας... πελειάς a single clause sub-
ordinate to γείτονες... λεών. This sug-
gestion requires mention because it is
adopted in almost all modern texts. It
is, I think, not only needless but mis-
taken; indeed δράκοντας δυσευνήτορας
cannot be translated without forcing the
natural sense of εὐνήτωρ.---δυσευνάτορας
Bothe.

282. τοὶ pav...rol δὲ Two parties
of the besiegers, one scaling, the other
slinging or hurling stones to clear the
wall.

30.

AIZXYAOY

otelyovow'—Tl γένωμαι ;—

τοὶ δ᾽ én’ ἀμφιβόλοισιν
ἰάπτουσι πολίταις
χερμάδ᾽ ὀκριόεσσαν.
παντὶ τρόπῳ, Διογενεῖς
θεοί, πόλεν καὶ στρατὸν
Καδμογενῆ ῥύεσθε.

ποῖον δ᾽ ἀμείψεσθε γαίας πέδον

τῶσδ᾽ ἄρειον, ἐχθροῖς

285

290

3 [4
QvuT™T.@.

ἀφέντες τὰν βαθύχθον᾽ αἶαν,

ὕδωρ τε Διρκαῖον, ev-
τραφέστατον πωμάτων
ὅσων inow Πὸοσει-
δᾶν ὁ γαιάοχος
Τηθύος τε παῖδες ;
πρὸς τάδ᾽, ὦ πολιοῦχοι
θεοί, τοῖσι μὲν ἔξω
πύργων ἀνδρολέτειραν
κατὰ ῥίψοπλον ἄταν
ἐμβαλόντες ἄροισθε
κῦδος τοῖσδε πολίταις,

201. ἀμείψασθε---ἀμείψεσθε m’.

285. ἀμφιβόλοισιν : active, ‘dividing
their missiles’ between the scalers and
the slingers, and thus contending with
less effect. πάντοθεν βαλλομένοις, ἢ ἀμ-
φοτέρωθεν Schol., taking the passive sense;
but the scaling party are not βάλλοντες.
In common military use the passive ἀμφί-
Bodos is regular, but for this very reason
the other is better in poetry.

293- τὰν demonstrative, you. They
point to it.

296. Πποσειδᾶν produces the rivers
as god of the water-world or liquid ele-
ment in general (τῆς ὑγρᾶς οὐσίας δεσ-
πότης Schol.) and of things subterranean.

Τηθύος παῖδες the rivers, children of
’OQxeavds and his sister Τηθύς. Hes. Zheog.
337-

300. τοῖσι μὲν answers loosely to
τοῖσδε UV. 304.

294.

295

300

εὐτρεφέστατον. 302. καταρίψοπλον.

302. κατὰ. The preposition is ad-
verbial and constructed with ἐμβαλόντες,
guasi κατεμβαλόντες. For the metre
compare uv. 300 with v. 282. The final
a is lengthened by ῥ as usual. Note that
the adjectives ἀνδρολέτειραν and ῥίψοπλον
stand in slightly different relations to ἄταν,
the second, an epithet, describing the im-
mediate, the first, a further predicate, the
more remote consequence of the panic.—
᾿Αχαιοῖς ἄτην ἐμποιήσατε ὥστε αὐτοὺς τὰ
ὅπλα ῥῖψαι Schol. Paley justly remarks
that αὐτοὺς is emphatic, but this scarcely
warrants the inference that αὐτορίψοπλον
was in the text.

304. πολίταις from our citizens,
strictly akin to the instrumental, ‘by
means of’ them. So the Schol. τούτου
δὲ γενομένου πρὸς ὑμῶν wayu ay ὑμνοῖσθε
καρὰ τῶν πολιτῶν (where τούτον δὲ γενο-

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

καὶ πόλεως ῥύτορες

εὔεδροί τε στάθητ᾽

ὀξυγόοις λιταῖσιν.

οἰκτρὸν γὰρ πόλιν ὧδ᾽ ὠγυγίαν
᾿Αἴδᾳ προϊάψαι δορὸς ἄγραν,
dovAlay ψαφαρᾷ σποδῷ,

. 31
305

στρ. β΄.

310

ὑπ᾽ ἀνδρὸς ᾿Αχαιοῦ θεόθεν

περθομέναν ἀτίμως"

τὰς δὲ κεχηρωμένας ἄγεσθαι,

A

ἃ ἔ, νέας Te καὶ παλαιὰς

ἱππηδὸν πλοκάμων, περιρ- 315

ρηγνυμένων φαρέων.

βοᾷ δ᾽ ἐκκενουμένα πόλις,

306. re.

μένου looks like an attempt to render

κατὰ as if κᾷτα or εἶτα). Cf. ὠνεῖσθαί
τι to buy from, and Hom. 727. 4. 95
riot δέ κεν Τρώεσσι χάριν καὶ κῦδος ἄροιο

᾿ (Blomfield).

306. εὕεδροί τε. ““εὔεδροι ordOnre”.
συναπτέον τὸ (τῷ Wecklein) “ ποῖον ἀμεί-
ψεσθε γαίας πέδον" Schol. Apparently an
interpretation intended to avoid the in-
consistency of figures (pa, ἴστασθαι) by
giving ἔδρα the metaphorical sense place
of abode, fairness of the place being the
ground of the appeal for protection, as in
the verse cited. But στάθητε is rather
stay than stand (cf. Lex. s. Ὁ. ἴστημι B.
II.) and evedpor throned is used merely
a ἃ constant epithet of the gods, from
their attitude in representation, without
regard to the particular context.

307. Avrate causal dative.

308. dyvylav. Here and in Soph.
Phil. t42 this word clearly means very
anctent, something like our ‘pre-historic’.

_ Pindar (Vem. vi. 46) applies it to the

hills (ὠγύγια 8pn) of Phlius, probably
indicating traces or traditions of ancient
habitation. It is applied to Thebes by
all the three tragedians, and by Aeschy-
lus to the Egyptian Thebes (ers. 37)
under the influence of association. It

was explained of course by reference to
a hero "Ὥγυγος (schol. here) but is pro-
bably of foreign, possibly of: Phoenician,
origin.

310. σποδῷ the vague poetic dative
of circumstance; cf. the Latin ablative.

311. ᾿Αχαιοῦ θεόθεν of Achacan re-
ligion, who would therefore have no care
to preserve the worship (τιμαί) of the
gods of Thebes: literally ‘Achaean by
his gods’, cf. πατρόθεν, μητρόθεν. As the
gods of a race were the ancestors of that
race (cf. v. 125) the analogy seems strictly
appropriate.—Oeé0ev is commonly taken
with περθομέναν in the sense of ‘sacked
by the help of the gods’. But I agree |
with Heimsoeth (who suggests πέδοθεν)
in rejecting this. It by no means follows
that, because πέρθειν πόλιν θεόθεν is a
possible phrase (if it is), a city could be
said πέρθεσθαι θεόθεν.

213. κεχηρωμένας ὀεγεγξ of their pro-
tectors. κεχειρωμένας m and edd. But
the MS. gives a better point and a less
common word. |

317. While the city, growing empty
as the captive train with divers tones of
lamentation passes away, cries, ‘I dread
for thee a horrible fate’. dats (or Ants)
usually of things or animals captured

32 “ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

λαΐδος ὀλλυμένας μιξοθρόον'
βαρείας τοι τύχας προταρβῶ.
κλαυτὸν δ᾽ ἀρτιτρόποις ὠμοδρόπων,
νομίμων προπάροιθεν, διαμεῖψραι
δωμάτων στυγερῶν ὀδόν----

τί; τὸν φθίμενον γὰρ προλέγω
βέλτερα τῶνδε πράσσειν.

πολλὰ γάρ, εὖτε πτόλις δαμασθῇ,
é & δυστυχῆ τε πράσσει.

ἄντ. β΄.

320

325

320. ἀρτιδρόποις τη. 322. . στνγερὰν ὁδόν. 325. πόλις.

as prey; here for pathetic effect of the
female captives. ὀλλυμένας in the passive

sense corresponding to Jose in the active,
ὀλλύναι; literally zs being lost (to her).

See on v. 408. toumay be strictly a pro-
noun ( for thee), or may be only the particle
proper to a meditation arising naturally
from the circumstances.

320. Probablyaprirpéarav ὠμοδρόποις
(Ritschl), ὦ. “. ὠμοδρόποις (passive) mpo-
πάροιθεν ἀρπιτρόπων νομίμων. ἀρτίτροπα,
of the marriage-rite (νόμιμα), may sig-
nify either seasonadle (from τροπή), or more
probably γέρεα (from τρόπος, manner).
It may likewise apply tothe maidens them-
selves. A Schol. takes it so, explaining
ὠμοδρόπων as active (of the ravisher) and
the genitive as a genitive of the agent, wyo-
δρόπων᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ὠμῶς αὐτῶν δρεπομένων τὴν
ἤβην πρὸ τῶν νομίμων γάμων : but such ἃ
genitive can only be used with a passive
verb; here the preposition ὑπὸ or πρὸς
would be indispensable. Neither can
ὡμοδρόπων be joined with vouluwy, which
is its opposite. The variation in M, and
the schol., which explain both dprirpé-
ποις and ἀρτιδρόποις, show that the con-
fusion is ancient, and point towards the
correction above cited.—If ἀρτιτρόποις
ὠμοδρόπων be retained, the only possible
construction of ὠμοδρόπων (active sense)
is as possessive genitive depending on
δωμάτων : itis a woeful fate for maidens
but just ripe (ἀρτι-τροπή) to pass the thresh-

old of a vavisher’s detested home, instead
of that of a lawful husband. But such
a complication of genitives is not pro-
bable. Paley suggests for ὠρτιτρόποις the
interpretation modest.

321. διαμεῖψαι δωμάτων orvyepav
ὁδόν (3) to guit their homes on a hateful
journey, lit. to change their homes for
a hateful journey. But the construction
is more peculiar and the uses of diapel-
Bew and δῶμα less easy to support than
might be supposed.—orvyepwov Meineke,
referring δωμάτων to the house of the
captor. Cf. Eur. Hec. 448 τῷ δουλό-
συνος πρὸς οἶκον κτηθεῖσ᾽ ἀφίξομαι; If
we accept this, we should certainly also
read not ὁδόν but ὀδόν, ¢hreshold, which
restores διαμεῖψαι to its natural meaning
(pass) and makes an effective allusion to
the passing of the bride over.the thresh-

. old in the marriage ceremony.

323. τί; te. τί λέγω; What shall
I say? yap marks the sentence as the
answer to the previous question.—wpo-
λέγω. ὁ προτεθνηκὼς εὐτυχῶς πράσσει
Schol., taking τὸν φθίμενον... προ- for τὸν
προφθίμενον. This however is scarce-
ly possible, especially considering the
rhythm: mpo- signifies preference, ‘I call
his fate the better before (in preference
to) the other’,

325. The indefinite relative with subj.
and without ἄν: archaic and poetical
construction. Cf. v. 243.

ENTTTA ΕΠῚ OHBAS.

ἄλλος δ᾽ ἄλλον ayes, hovev-

et, τὰ δὲ πυρφορεῖ'

καπνῷ δὲ ypalverat πόλισμ᾽ ἅπαν.
μαινόμενος δ᾽ ἐπιπνεῖ λαοδάμας
μιαίνων εὐσέβειαν "Αρης.
κορκορυγαὶ δ᾽ av’ ἄστυ,

ποτὶ πτόλιν δ᾽ ὁρκάνα πυργῶτις.
πρὸς ἀνδρὸς δ᾽ ἀνὴρ δορὶ κλίένεται"

33

330

στρ. γ΄.

a 3 e ’
βλαχᾷ δ᾽ αἱματόεσσαι
τῶν ἐπιμαστιδίων
ἀρτιτρεφεῖς βρέμονται"

335"

327. (τὰ μὲν) φονεύει, τὰ δὲ πυρφορεῖ:
murdering here and burning there.—
ἄλλος ἄλλον Heimsoeth.

330. And Ares, mad with conquest of a
people, breathes upon fair Reverence his de-
filing breath. Ἐὐσέβεια is a personification.
Otherwise the expression μιαίνων εὐσέ-
Becay would scarcely be tolerable in Greek.

333. ὁρκάνα wupyaris. φυλακή : gloss
in M. It is quite uncertain what this
describes. The only sense in which ép-
κάνα is used in an extant passage is met,
snare (Eur. Bacch. 611, cf. pxos), and so
the Schol. here, ὁρκίση τὸ θηρατικὸν δίκτυον,
ὃ καὶ σαργάνη καλεῖται, Photius adds the
sense ‘surrounding wall’, ὁ περιέχων τοῖχος
οἴκησιν ἢ χωρίον. λέγεται δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἕρκος, ὅ
ἐστι περίβολον φρᾶγμα. It has been sup-
posed therefore here to mean ‘wall of
circumvallation’ (Blomfield), but this is
out of the question, as the description
is of a sack not a siege.—Mcst of the re-
cent commentators propose corrections,
e.g. wporl θ᾽ dpxavay πυργῶτιν (the wall of
the city itself) Heimsoeth. But apart
from the unsafe argument of metre (see
Appendix) we cannot prove error. The
very rarity of the phrase is a guarantee,
and it may have had many meanings not
now discoverable.

334. κλίνεται zs laid low. Cf. Anth.
P. Vil. 493, ὑπὸ δυσμενέων δούρατι κεκ-
λίμεθα.----καίνεται τα.

V. AE.

335

βλαχαὶ.

335. 41π|Ωῶ the young mothers blood-red
cry aloud at the bleating of their babes.
αἱματόεσσαι. The redness may be either
from the natural flush or from the bleeding
of wounds, inflicted by the enemy in the
struggle, or by themselves in their des-
pair. The same ambiguity occurs in
Soph. Ant. 529 αἱματόεν ῥέθος, and for
the purpose of poetry need not be re-
solved. dprurpepets, literally ‘just be-
come nurses’ (the compounds of -τρεφης
are both active and passive), is substan-
tival, like ἀρτιτρόποις (or wuodpdros) in
UV. 320, θαλαμηπόλων in v. 346. For the
junction with another adjective cf. κεδνὸς
οἱἰακοστρόφος v. 62 etc.

337. Bpépovras, roar, the French /rémir
or rugir. The word suggests, of course
intentionally, the picture of a wounded
wild animal, whose cubs are killed or
taken. Unfortunately our corresponding
English words roar, bellow have been spoilt
for poetical purposes.—The trivial mis-
accentuation βλαχαὶ in M, an ingeniously
simple error by which every word down
to the very article becomes meaningless,
converts the sentence into this, ‘ and the
bloody bleatings of those babes, being
new-suckled, roar’. The first note in the
schol. seems to come from a commen-
tator who recognised the dative singular
-- ἐπὶ τῶν ἄσημα φθεγγομένων νέων τὴν
βληχὴν ἔθηκεν.

34

AIZXYAOY

ἁρπαγαὶ δὲ διαδρομᾶν ὁμαίμονες.

ξυμβολεῖ φέρων φέροντι
καὶ κενὸς κενὸν καλεῖ,
ξύννομον θέλων ἔχειν

340

οὔτε μεῖον οὔτ᾽ ἴσον λελιμμένον.

9 “a

Ti

338. διαδρομὰν. 342.

438. ὁμαίμονες : σνγγεν εἴς" “Ἕλληνες γὰρ
πάντε:---οἷον μετὰ αἵματος γενόμεναι---ἢ
τῶν ὁμαίμονων καὶ συγγενῶν (ἣ καὶ ὁμαι-
μόνων" τῶν σνγγενῶν ?) καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς γένους.
Schol.—Here again there is obviously
some small error in M, though precisely
where it is not easy to say. The meaning
clearly is that the elder children, the
ὁμαίμονες (brothers and sisters) of the
babes and of each other, are pursued and
seized as they try to escape; the whole
passage 334—338 is one picture, describ-
ing the massacre of the family in succes-
sive touches.—S8vadpopav m’, perhaps
rightly: and the ὁμαίμονες (we have no
precisely similar word) fall a prey to the
scattering pursuit: here διαδρομᾶν stands
for the concrete τῶν διαδρόμων : for the
passive sense of ἁρπαγή and the depen-
dent genitive cf. Pers. 754 τοῦ φθάσαντος
ἁρπαγή.---Οὐ the other hand διαδρομή
perhaps more naturally describes the
action of the fugitives than of the pur-
suers (cf. v. 174), and this supports the
reading apparently indicated by the third
schol. διαδρομᾶν (or διαδρόμων) ὁμαιμόνων,
taking ἁρπαγαί as δοίϊνα. ---διαδρόμων
Schiitz.—The explanation of a later Schol.
‘there is Plundering, sister of Pursuit’, is
scarcely to be entertained, in spite of
Hermann’s “vere poetica’’. It is surely
alien to the style of a description like
this, and wholly different from the λιγνύς
....upos κάσις (νυ. 481) which is sometimes
cited for it. Note also the plurals.

339—349 describe the wasteful revel
which follows the massacre. Cf. Ag. 342.
—fupBorc joins messes, i.e. makes up a
feast with: see the Lex. 5. vu. συμβολή,

ἐκ τῶνδ᾽ εἰκάσαι λόγος πάρα;

λελημμένοι---λελιμμένοι rece.

σύμβολος (not meets as in Lex., συναντᾷ
m).—kevds: ὁ μὴ φέρων.---καλεῖ, invites,
bids to the feast.

341. Willing to have for partner one
who ts as hungry as he or hungrier.
Commonly in a συμβολή each contributor
would desire to find his partner’s appe-
tite ἢ μεῖον 4 ἴσον, less than his own, or
at all events no greater; as he has thus
the better chance of satisfying himself.
Here, the provision being unlimited, the
condition does not apply. The συμβολή
was a common custom, and from the
negative form used here, it may be con-
jectured that ἢ μεῖον ἢ ἴσον λελιμμένος
ἔστω σύννομος, or something to the
same effect, was a soldier’s proverb.
—The same meaning may /ferhaps
be got from λελιμμένοι, ‘each willing to
have the other for partner, though their
appetites are neither less nor equal’, an
illogical but not unintelligible expression.
But the change is a great gain in clear-
ness and extremely slight.—The current
explanation, that the xevol are more
(neither less nor equally) hungry than the
φέροντες makes the circumlocution point-
less.

443. Cx: probably rls. What reckon-
ing ts thereto conjecture here? ἐκ τῶνδε: ἐκ
τῶν παρόντων, with a provision which will
give each as much as he will. The ques-
tion expresses the feeling of the spoilers
and explains what precedes. Commonly
the hungry partner must speculate on
the amount of the provision, the appetites
of the rest, and the chance that his own —
share would content him. Here otherwise.
---τί δεῖ ἐκ τούτων ὑπονοῆσαι ἢ πένθη Kai

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAS. 35

παντοδαπὸς δὲ καρπὸς

χαμάδις πεσὼν ἀλγύνει κυρήσατ᾽

ὦντ. γ΄.

345

πικρὸν δ᾽ ὄμμα θαλαμηπόλων'᾽

πολλὰ δ᾽ ἀκριτόφυρτος
A 4 3 n

yas δόσις οὐτιδανοῖς

3 e , a

ἐν ῥοθίοισε φορεῖται.

Suawldes δὲ καινοπήμονες νέαι,

350

τλήμονες εὐνὰν αἰχμάλωτον

3 9 fe) e
ἀνδρὸς εὐτυχοῦντος, ὡς
δυσμενοῦς ὑπερτέρουν

ἐλπίς ἐστι νύκτερον τέλος μολεῖν,

συμφοράς ; schol., which applies equally
to ris or rl. The lemma gives τί, but
the lemmata cannot be trusted: on 291
the lemma as first written gives ἀμείψασθε
with the MS., though the three notes all ex-
plain the correct ἀμείψεσθε.---τίνα.. λόγον
(Dindorf) would give the same sense.-—It
will be seen that the Schol. takes the
question to describe the feelings of the
speakers, as imaginary spectators of the
scene, What can be expected from this ?,
—rois Prien, Paley: =éxelvots ἃ, upon con-
jecture of what ts before them.

344. παντοδαπὸς of all soils (from all

* places). A Schol. might have noted an
‘anachronism’, for the epithet is suggest-
ed rather by the household stores of the
age of commerce, than by the age ‘of
Eteocles’. (Note that παντοδαπός is not
for παντοῖος, of which use there is no
evidence.)

345. ἀλγύνει κυρήσαβ veres whom
it meets, literally, ‘when it meets’.—rdv
τυγχάνοντα schol., which as a supplement
is correct. A prose writer would have
preferred τὸν κυρήσαντα, but, as the action
of κυρεῖν is necessarily mutual, the text
comes to the same thing. —xupotcas
Heath.

348. ἐπειδὴ τὰ κύματα ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε ὠφέ-
λειαν παρέχεται ταῖς πόλεσι (διὰ γὰρ αὖ-
τῶν τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ἄγεται), τροπικῶς δὲ ῥοθία
εἶπεν τὰ συνεχῆ κινήματα τῶν πολεμίων,
προσέθηκεν ἐπιτηδὲς τὸ οὐτιδανοῖς, οἷον

ἀχρείοις Schol. The quaintness of the
comparison is not unlike Aeschylus, but
doubtless the ῥοθία 15 merely a picturesque
expression for the outpoured abundance
itself. The Schol. was misled by the pre-
position, for which cf. v. 267.

250-255. And the young slave-girls,
wretched prises of a soldier's spear, feel
their woes afresh; for when the foe ἐς
master their prospect ἐς to attend the office
of the night, auxtliar of their tearful
griefs.—véar. The position of the epithet
is peculiar, but explicable if it be em-
ployed by way of contrast to καινοπτήμονες.
νέαν (εὐνὰν), C. G. Haupt, is simpler.
εὐνὰν acc. of respect, depending on τλή-
poves: εὐνᾶν αἰχμαλώτων (Scaliger) would
be more usual both id number and case,
but the accusative is not obscure.—ds
causal, since, explains καινοπήμονες. The
duwldes, as such, are already εὐναὶ αἰχμά-
λωτοι ἀνδρὸς evruxobvros, having been re-
duced to their condition by capture; and
it is this which gives to καινοπήμονες its
force and pathos; in the violence of the
new possessor their misery is renewed.—
ἐλπίς neutral (φόβος τη, as in Ag. 1435,
and see Lex. s. v. ἐλπίζω), but not without
perception of the commoner meaning.—
vixrepov τέλος : the dignity of the ex-
pression, which recalls the nocturnal ri-
tual (τέλη) of the Dionysiac and other
mysteries, has a bitter irony. This ex-
planation is due to Hermann; in the

3--2

παγκλαύτων adyéwv ἐπίρροθον.

AIZXYAOY

355

HM. 6 τοι κατόπτης, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, στρατοῦ
πευθώ τιν᾽ ἡμῖν, ὦ φίλαι, νέαν φέρει,
σπουδῇ διώκων πομπίμους χνόας ποδῶν.

ΗΜ. καὶ μὴν ἄναξ 68 αὐτὸς Οἰδίπου τόκος

elo” ὠρτίκολλον ἀγγέλου λόγον μαθεῖν'

260

σπουδὴ δὲ καὶ τοῦδ᾽ οὐκ ἀπαρτίξει πόδα.

earlier texts, and some since, ἐλπίς
begins a fresh sentence, γύκτερον τέλος
being taken for #igh¢ simply or very arti-
ficially for death. But the better punctu-
ation does not require any change.—
παγκλαύτων ἀλγέων ἐπίρροθον : the am-
biguity is intentional and sustains the
irony. On the one hand night is pro-
verbially the reliever of suffering and in
Hesiod is actually termed ἐπίρροθος, as
the refreshment of the labouring slave—
μακραὶ yap ἐπίρροθοι εὔφροναί εἰσιν (Of.
560), an expression which Aeschylus pro-
bably intended to recall: on the other
hand the νύκτερον τέλος in this case
‘aids the grief’ in the more obvious sense
of increasing it. To this extent αὐξητικός,
the gloss of m’, is correct.—This passage
has been much and variously corrected
on metrical grounds. See Appendix.

358. Orging for haste the axles of hts
returning feet. σπουδῇ causal.—Sudxev
suggests that he would better his speed if
he could. This is to be noted for its bear-
ing upon v. 361.---πομπίμους, home-bring-
ang. Cf. Pind. Nem. 111. 25 ὅπα πόμπιμον
κατέβαινε νόστον τέλος and other passages
cited on Eur. AZed. 848. The notion of
‘ bringing to the journey’s end’ appears in
most uses of this word in the poets, and
gives more point here than the simple
which bear him along.

360. Will come ‘pat’ to hear the man’s
report.—They judge from the distance
of the two and their speed that they will
arrive together. The phrase appears to
come from the language of joinery : dprt-
κολλος means by etymology exactly glued,
from which the general notion of ‘fitting

exactly’ is easily derived: ἐν συναφῇ ἁρμό-
διον, ἢ τὸν (τὸ ἢ) ἀρτίως κολλώμενον, Schol.
—tlo ‘will arrive’ might be justified by
Eum. 32 ἴτων πάλῳ λαχόντες : but pro-
bably in the trade-use ἱέναι meant that
the two things joined (‘went ἢ together, so
that ‘ wll join exactly’ would be the lite-
ral rendering.—dprlxodAov: there seems
to be an ellipse of a substantive (e.g.
ἁρμόν) as in other set phrases, ¢g. διαν-
ralay πεπλῆχθαι (πληγήν), γιγνώσκειν Thy
νικῶσαν (γνώμην) etc.—dprixodrAos Paley.
εἰς ἀρτίκολλον Porson, supplying the verb
(ἐστί) with ὅδε. Either form would be
more normal, but in a quasi-technical
phrase of this kind we cannot assume
that the form was normal, and must take
the tradition as we find it.

361. And his foot, like the other's, doth
disappoint his haste—to use Elizabethan
language ; literally ‘ And his haste also
is wanting (not fully supplied) in respect
of foot’: z.e. Eteocles, like the messenger
(see on v. 358), is using his utmost speed
and trying to come faster than he can.
—dmaprifew (intransitive) or ἀπηρτίσθαι
means ‘to be at full, to be made up to
the complement’ (see Lex. 5. v.), οὐκ
dwapritew therefore ‘to be defective’, or
in vulgar English ‘short’. It is a rare
word and not ‘ Attic’, ¢.¢ not used in
classic prose (see Phrynichus 411); and
the construction with an acc. of re-
spect does not apparently occur else-
where, but it is according to the ana-
logy of similar words, ¢.g. ἀποτετελέσθαι.
The use of πόδα for ‘strength’ or ‘ capa-
bility’ of foot is much like that of χεῖρα
for ‘operation of the hand’ in Eur. Med.

ETTTA ΕΠῚ OHBA2. 37

AY.

λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν εἰδὼς εὖ τὰ τῶν ἐναντίων,

ὥς t ἐν πύλαις ἕκαστος εἴληχεν πάλον.
Τυδεὺς μὲν ἤδη πρὸς πύλαισι Τροιτίσιν

’ , 7 9 \ 3 3 “ὦ a
βρέμει, πόρον & ᾿Ισμηνὸν οὐκ ἐᾷ περᾶν

365

ὁ μάντις οὐ γὰρ σφάγια γίγνεται καλά.
Τυδεὺς δὲ μαργῶν καὶ μάχης λελιμμένος !’
μεσημβριναῖς κλωγγαῖσιν ὡς δράκων Boa
θείνει δ᾽ ὀνείδει μάντιν Οἰκλείδην σοφὸν

σαίνειν μόρον τε καὶ μάχην ἀψυχίᾳ.

1055 χεῖρα δ᾽ οὐ διαφθερῶ.--- τούτου δὲ
σπουδὴ οὕπω τέλος ἔχει ἀλλ᾽ ἐπείγεται" τὸ
γὰρ ἀπηρτισμένον καὶ τέλος ἔχει, μεθ᾽ ὃ
οὐκ ἄλλο πρακτέον Schol., which is not far
from the meaning as above explained.—
The rendering regulate, make regular has
no authority.—ov καταρτίζει rece., εὖ xar-
aprife Weil.

362. Here enter on one side of the
stage the scout returned from observation
of the Argives, and onthe other Eteocles
and the six warriors whom he has chosen
with himself to command the defence at
the several gates. On the arrangement
of the scene and on the local allusions see
the Jntroduction.

363. ἐν πύλαις literally ‘in the matter
of the gates’; for what gate each has
drawn a lot.

366. ὁ μάντις. Amphiaraus.

367. papyov. μαργᾶν and the cog-
nate words are almost always connected as

. here with the notion of furious apfetete.

The idea of madness is secondary, that of
craving primary. In form it is a verb
Sof disease’, like λημάω, of which class
the desideratives (φονάω etc.) area branch.

369. θείνει sustains the image of a
snake—s¢rikes, as with a sting. So
θείνειν is used in Homer of a goad (μάσ-
rit, βουπλήξ) : for the application of the
metaphor to taunts cf. Hum. 136 ἄλγησον
ἧπαρ ἐνδίκοις ὀνείδεσιν τοῖς σώφροσιν γὰρ
ἀντίκεντρα γίγνεται.

370. ἀψυχίᾳ. This very rare word
(literally A/elessness or spiritlessness) occurs
in this play twice (see v. 245), both times

370

in connexion with a ‘mantic’ subject
(δυσφημία, μάντι5), and in the A/cestis four
times. In medical language ἀψυχεῖν, ἀψυ-
xla signified fo swoon, swooning. See
Lex. 5. vv. From this peculiar distribu-
tion it is clear that in Aeschylus and
Euripides it is not a casual synonym for
δειλία, but is chosen for some particular
reason. In the present passage it is also
clear that the taunt of ἀψυχία is pointed
at Amphiaraus as a μάντις, and for using
religious arts to defer the fight: for the
words μάντιν σοφὸν, to haveany point, must
be part of the taunt or at least explain its
effect. Nor is it difficult to fix the point.
One of the methods of divination was
the swoon or trance,in which the ψυχή of
the seer was supposed to depart from
his body and return with reports of its
visions in distant places (see Smith, Dicz.
Biog. Hermotimus, Tylor, Anthropology
p- 345). The mockery of Tydeus turns
upon this ‘ absence of spirit’, and upon
the form of the word, which makes it a
sort of contrary to εὐψυχία courage. Note
also the formal antithesis between ayuyla
and σαίνειν μόρον ‘avoiding death by
absence of soul’. With a seer’s cunning
he shuns death and the fight at once be-
cause ‘the spiritis notin him’. The trans-
lation is necessarily inadequate, not only
because the subject has no modern terms,
but also from the convenient ambiguity
of the dative, which is both instrumental
and causal. Equally in v. 245 ἀψυχία
should receive its full meaning ; it is when
‘the spirit is gone’, as it were, that fear

38 AIZXYAOY

τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀυτῶν τρεῖς κατασκίους λόφους
σείει, κράνους χαίτωμ᾽, ὑπ᾽ ἀσπίδος δ᾽ ἐσώ'
χαλκήλατοι κλάξουσι κώδωνες φόβον.

μι 2 ¢ a % > 3 3 ὃ ὃ

ἔχει δ᾽ ὑπέρφρον σῆμ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος τόδε

φλέγονθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἄστροις οὐρανὸν τετυγμένον"

375

λαμπρὰ δὲ πανσέληνος ἐν μέσῳ σάκει,
πρέσβιστον ἄστρον, νυκτὸς ὀφθαλμός, πρέπει.

372. δ᾽ ἐσώ sic—yp. τῶ mY.

surprises the masterless tongue, and
speaks by it words which are not more
controlled by the terrified person than
those of one in a trance—or at least so
the maidens would imply by their apo-
logy.—The four passages in the A/cestis
(642, 696, 717, 954) all describe the con-
duct of Pheres, Admetus’ father, in refu-

sing to die for his son. The context, which |

in every case ‘refers to Admetus’ denial of
his sonship, ¢g. καί μ᾽ οὐ νομίζω παῖδα
σὸν πεφυκέναι. ἦ τἄρα πάντων διαπρέπεις
ayvxlg, 642, leaves no doubt in what
sense (a very natural one) //éless or
spiritless is there used. Cf. Eur. 770.
619, where the women.of Troy have been
allotted each to the λέκτρα of some
Greek, Cassandra to Agamemnon, An-
dromache to Neoptolemus, but Polyxena
to the dead Achilles, δῶρον ἀψύχῳ νεκρῷ,
an expression very interesting in this
connexion, as showing that Euripides
knew or felt the primitive theory of
female sacrifice at the tomb. And see
also the use of ψυχή in Eur.- Med. 247,
where, in contrast with the license of
husbands, it is said of wives, ἡμῖν δ᾽ ἀνάγκη
πρὸς μίαν ψυχὴν Brérew.

472. vw ἀσπίδος δ᾽ ἐσώ εἷς M. That
there is error here appears (1) from the
obscurity of the description, (2) from the
variant (it can scarcely be a conjecture)
recorded by m’, (3) from ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος in v.
374, needless if the shield has been
already mentioned, (4) from v. 386, which
indicates that the bells are attached not
to the shield but to the helmet, (5) from
the uncouth metre, for, if the punctuation

377. ἄστρον corr. to ἄστρων.

be allowed for, there is no caesura at all.
Probably ὑπ᾽ ἀσπίδος is a mere patch or
interpretation, put in to make up a de-
fect. I have elsewhere suggested (fournal
of the Hellen. Soc. Vol. τν.), from a
passage in the λεώς (307) where this is
closely imitated, that the original was
πρόσδετοι δὲ τῷ, and attached thereto, t.e.
to the crest or the helmet. πρόσδετος
is found in hes. /.c.and the combination
προσδετοιδετωι would be likely to cause
error.—éé τῷ rece.

475. φλέγοντα burning. The epi-
thet perhaps refers to the fiery element of
the heavens. Probably the colour is sup-
posed to represent this, rather than the
black of the nocturnal sky. Fire, as a
symbol of terror, appears in two other
emblems (vv. 420, 480).—tn’ ἄστροις :
join with τετυγμένον, not with φλέγοντα,
which would require ὑπ᾽ ἄστρων. The
οὐρανός is ‘wrought as a ground to’
the stars.—Or ὑπάστροις Jesser stars:
cf. ὑποζάκορος, ὑποκάπηλος etc., and con-
trast πρέσβιστον ἄστρον in v. 377. This
allows the construction with φλέγοντα,
supported by v. 388 and the order.

477. πρέσβιστον e/dest, and therefore
having precedence in dignity. For the
moon as a symbol of antiquity, see the
Lex. 5. v. wpocédnvos. The boast seems
to mark the antiquity of Tydeus’ town, the
antigua Calydon of Virgil (Aen. VIII.
307). That his badge should be the
moon is significant, if we remember that
Calydon worshipped the goddess Arte-
mis, having been destroyed, according
to the legend, for neglect of her cult.

ET.

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ QHBAS. 39

τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀλύων ταῖς ὑπερκόμποις σαγαῖς

βοᾷ παρ᾽ ὄχθαις ποταμίαις, μάχης ἐρῶν,

ἵππος χαλινῶν ὧς κατασθμαίνων μένει, 380
ὅστις Bony σάλπυγγος ὁρμαίνει μένων.

τίν᾽ ἀντιτάξεις τῷδε; τίς Προίτου πυλῶν,

κλήθρων λυθέντων, προστατεῖν φερέγγνος ;

κόσμον μὲν ἀνδρὸς οὔτιν᾽ ἄν τρέσαιμ᾽ ἐγώ,

οὐδ᾽ ἑλκοποιὰ γίγνεται τὰ σήματα" 385
λόφοι δὲ κώδων τ᾽ ov δάκνουσ᾽ ἄνευ δορός.

καὶ νύκτα ταύτην ἣν λέγεις ἐπ᾿ ἀσπίδος

The settlement appears to have been
pre-Hellenic, like that of Ephyre, with
its moon-goddess, on the site of Corinth,
though there is not the same reason as in
the case of Ephyre for thinking it Semitic.
378. τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀλύων or τοιαῦτα λύων.
It is curious that this, the sole example
of the word in Aeschylus, and all three
examples in Euripides (Ovest. 277, Htpp.
1182, frag. 668; in Cycl. 434 πτέρυγα
σαλεύει, Musgrave, seems correct) admit
either ἀλύω or λύω. Sophocles (four ex-
amples) admits only ἀλύω. That this dis-
tribution is not what we should expect if
ἀλύω were the only form, may be seen by
comparing similar words ἀκούω, ἀμείβω
etc. In the last, out of 14 examples in
Aeschylus, all but one require that the
a- shall belong to the verb. Probably
therefore the tragedians recognised a
double form, Avw and ἀλύω, like the
epic duplicates with a ‘prothetic’ a-.
The root is Au-: cf. λύη frenzy, λύσσα.
380. Like a horse breathing furiously
upon his bit, when he watts panting for
the sound of the trump. μένει causal
dative ‘because of his furious impulse’.
Conversely in Zum. 654, the calmness
of irresistible strength is expressed by
οὐδὲν ἀσθμαίνων μένει.--- ὁρμαίγει : this
verb properly means ¢o be eager or show
eagerness, which will satisfy this pass-
age; but it is coloured by special asso-
ciation with ‘panting’, which seems al-
most to have created a distinct secondary
meaning, to judge by Ag. 1387 (cited by

Paley) οὕτω τὸν αὐτοῦ θυμὸν ὁρμαίνει
πεσών" κἀκφυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν αἵματος σφαγὴν
κτλ. ---σάλπιγγος : used for starting
chariots in the games (Soph. 2}. 711);
this, rather than use in war, would occur
to a Greek.—There is no reason to sus-
pect error in these lines, The echoes of
sound are thoroughly Aeschylean.

383. κλήθρων λνθέντων, when the bar-
vier is opened, pursues the metaphor of the
impatient horse, with a play upon the
meaning ‘when the ga¢e is opened’.

385. ταῦτα wapd’Adxalov Schol. Per-
haps an actual citation of a verse ovx
ἑλκοποιὰ σήματα γίγνεται.

386. οὐ δάκνονσι do not sting—pur-
suing the comparison of Tydeus with
the fabulous crested snake: cf. v. 367.

387. γύκτα. The accusative case be-
longs to the relative clause, being placed
first to emphasize it as the general topic
of the sentence. In the principal clause
the noun is to be supplied in a different
relation—¢yv ταύτῃ. This is the true ana-
lysis in all cases in which the antecedent
is said to be ‘attracted’, We should say
As to this ‘night’, therein etc.—nvpety is
found, not superfluous or equivalent to
εἶναι here or ever: the emblem, regarded
as admitting an adverse interpretation, is
a chance or accident; it was intended
to signify otherwise. A similar thought
explains the use of τυγχάνειν ὧν for Zo be
really, when something turns out to be
otherwise than was expected. See the
editor’s note on Eur. Med. 608.

40

AIZXYAOY

ἄστροισι pappalipovoay οὐρανοῦ κυρεῖν,
τάχ᾽ ἂν γένοιτο μάντις ἡ ἀνοία τινί.

εἰ γὰρ θανόντι νὺξ ἐπ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖς πέσοι,

390

A , a > € .ἢ ’
τῷ τοι φέροντι σῆμ ὑπέρκομπον τόδε
γένοιτ᾽ av ὀρθῶς ἐνδίκως τ᾽ ἐπώνυμον,

39 ἃ 3 e A / τ ἤ
καὐτὸς καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ τήνδ᾽ ὕβριν μαντεύεται.
ἐγὼ δὲ Τυδεῖ κεδνὸν ᾿Αστακοῦ τόκον

τόνδ᾽ ἀντιτάξω προστάτην πυλωμάτων,

395

μάλ᾽ εὐγενῆ τε καὶ τὸν Αἰσχύνης θρόνον
τιμῶντα καὶ στυγοῦνθ᾽ ὑπέρφρονας λόγους"
αἰσχρῶν γὰρ ἀργός, μὴ κακὸς δ᾽ εἶναι φιλεῖ.
σπαρτῶν δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ὧν “Apns ἐφείσατο

ev 3 ? “Ὁ » δ᾽ 4 3 3 ’
ῥίζωμ᾽ ανεῖται, κάρτα ὃ ἔστ᾽ ἐγχωρίος,

389. ἄνοιά τινι.

389. τινί: ὦ certain one may find a
prophecy in his folly. There is of course no
real ambiguity in the reference, but this
ambiguous form is common in menaces,
e.g. Supp.913.—havola. The genuineness
of this reading is strongly confirmed by the
significance of μάντις-ἀνοία as a retort to
the μάντις-ἀψυχίᾳ of Tydeus’ taunt, ex-
plained at v. 370. Tydeus will prove an
involuntary prophet not by ‘absence of
soul’ but by ‘absence of wits’. These
pairs of speeches are carefully antithetic.
—For the metre and the form ἀνοίᾷ for
the usual ἄνοια, Paley cites Soph. frag.
517, 5 Τερπνῶς yap del πάντας ἡ ἀνοία
τρέφει, Eur. Andr. 521.--- μάντις ἡ ‘vola
vecc., μᾶντις ἁνοία Wordsworth. This
however is rather a question of pro-
nunciation.

390. The literal ‘falling’ of the shield,
with its painted ‘night’, over his eyes
will symbolize the darkness of death.

391- Note that ro: marks the words
τῷ φέροντι as familiar. They are pro-
bably from some proverb answering to
our ‘Curses come home to roost’,

392. ἐνδίκως: truly, not justly.—
ἐπώνυμον : see on v. 9.

393. And so this insolence of his ts a
prophecy against himself. μαντεύεται, the

400
203. μαντεύσεται τὴ.

original reading of M retained by rece.
and Keck, is logical and correct: μαν-
τεύσεται, the correction of m, is mistaken,
as the future, if used, must be taken, not
very accurately, as a ‘paulo-post’.

395. τόνδε, pointing to him.

397- Suspicious from the metre, in
this play almost unknown, and not de-
fended by the contents. Without this
line the context would mean that Melan-
ippus himself was known in the legends
by some name or description importing
‘one in whom sits modesty’, Αἰσχύνης
θρόνος. Cited as a known title, it would
of course take the article. The metaphor
implied in it is illustrated by Zum. 520
τὸ δεινὸν ἐπίσκοπον φρενῶν καθήμενον.

398. For tis his way to shun im-
modest act yet be no coward either.

399. The Sfarte sprang from the
dragon’s sown teeth; a remnant of them,
surviving their mutual slaughter, were the
original Thebans.—pl{apa, nominative ;
he is a plant from the root of etc. The
construction is ἀνεῖται ῥίζωμα ἐκείνων, ὧν
“Apns ἐφείσατο ἀπὸ (from among) Σπαρ-
τῶν ἀνδρῶν.

400. He is ἐν-χώριος, of the sotl, in
more than the common sense of nafive.

ETTTA ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ. 41

Μελάνιππος.

ἔργον δ᾽ ἐν κύβοις “Apns κρινεῖ"

δίκη δ᾽ ὁμαίμων κάρτα νιν προστέλλεται
εἴργειν τεκούσῃ μητρὶ πολέμιον δόρυ.

ΧΟ. τὸν ἁμόν νυν ἀντίπαλον εὐτυχεῖν στρ. α΄.
θεοὶ δοῖεν, ὡς δικαίως πόλεως 405
πρόμαχος ὄρνυται' τρέμω δ᾽ aiparn-

404. ἀμὸν corr. to ἁμὸν. 406. πρόσμαχοσ.
401—402. Note the contrasted em- In Eur. Z/. Zc. the accidental use of our

phasis of ἔργον and δίκη. The prose
arrangement would be καὶ ἔργον μὲν...
κρινεῖ" δίκη δὲ... ΝΣ he will accom-
plish, he leaves to the chance of war;
his cause at least is just’.—Sley δὲ κτλ.
He has a special claim to defend the
land, because she is in a special sense
his mother: lit. ‘a right, which is
indeed of his blood, puts him forward
as her champion to defend etc.’—The
shields of the Theban champions, like
those of the Argives, bear emblems (see
Ψ. 497 and passznz), illustrating, no doubt,
the words applied tothem. Throughout
this scene it is extremely important to
bear this in mind. Melanippus’ blazon
appears to be Δίκη, bearing perhaps be-
fore her a sapling (ῥίζωμα). Compare
that of Polynices, συ. 631.—Here Me-
lanippus leaves the stage to take his
place. See on wv. 406—408.

404. Gpdv our. Here the plural is
strictly appropriate, as also in v. 641.
This is not always the case; but it is to
be observed that ἁμός is not a mere syn-
onym for ἐμός. There are two regular
uses of it: (1), of things which are alwa,s
or usually common to the speaker and
others, so that the use of our or my is
easy, even when the speaker is thinking
for the moment only of himself. Thus in
English our house or my house may be
used almost indifferently. Such are rarnp
(Eur. Z£/. 355 and elsewhere), πόλις (Eur.
Andr. 1187), οἶκος (Jph. Taur. 149),
σύγγονος, τέκνον, Aarpis—all elements of
the community. So in Al. 397 ἁμὸν
βίον our life is the life of the household,

has a special point; it is, though the
speaker does not know it, strictly appro-
priate, the person addressed being her
brother. (2) Both our and we are used
by a single speaker for dignity, as by
Athena in Zum. 443 ἑστίας duns. For
parallel uses of ἡμέτερος see (1) Soph. Z/.
116 τίσασθε φόνον πατρὸς ἡμετέρου (Elec-
tra to the Eumenides), Eur. Jph. A. 554
ἀπεννέπω “Epwra ἁμετέρων θαλάμων (cf.
ἁμὸς olxos), Pind. Pyth. 1v. 110 ἁμετέρων το-
κέων, and (2) auérepos (and ὠμός) frequently
in Pindar, when speaking as poet and
priest of the Muse, Οὐ. ΧΙ. 3, 8, Pyth. 111.
65, Nem. 111. 1 etc. Whether our is ever
used as a mere variation for my is doubt-
ful. The most remarkable case is Jph. 7.
1139 ἐν νώτοις ἁμοῖς πτέρυγας λήξαιμι
θοάζουσα, where however the reading is
uncertain. It is worth notice that though
duds (the masculine) occurs frequently in
dialogue, the Ionic inflexions in -ἢ seem
to be naturally avoided: ἑστίας ἁμῆς
above cited is an exception.—The Mss.
(and modern texts) vary between duds
and duos. In the quasi-Doric of the
Athenian poets probability favours the
aspirate. The true Doric is ἀμός.

405. ὡς as, connect closely with δικαίως ;
‘may he prosper as his cause is just °.

406—408. 2.6. τρέμω ὑπὲρ φίλων ddo-
μένων, ἰδέσθαι αἱματηφόρους μόρους αὐτῶν.

But, when one I love passes away, I
tremble to see his bloody corse borne home,
or fo see him carried, a bloody corse: lite-
rally ‘I tremble for them when gone, to
see etc.’, the words ἰδέσθαι xr). explaining
τρέμω ὑπὲρ piiwy.—ddopdvov, For this

42

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

φόρους: μόρους ὑπὲρ φίλων

ὀλομένων ἰδέσθαι.
ΑΓ.

sense of ὄλλυσθαι, ὀλέσθαι, ἐσ be lost (to
view), pass away (out of sight), cf. v. 318
Aal8os ὀλλυμένας and a more clear ex-
ample in Supp. 787 μέλας γενοίμην καπνὸς
γέφεσι γειτονῶν Διός, τὸ πᾶν δ᾽ ἄφαντος...
ἄτερθε πτερύγων ὁλοίμαν. In the last
Dindorf substitutes ὀροίμαν, and here also
ὁρομένων is possible; but it is scarcely
probable that an error so peculiar should
occur twice, and the three examples
defend each other. If ὁλομένων be taken
in the sense of dead, τρέμω ὑπὲρ φίλων
ὀλομένων has no meaning; there cannot
be fear for one who is dead. It is how-
ever possible to separate ὁλομένων from
φίλων and join it as possessive genitive
with sépous—the corpses of them dead.
But the order of words is strongly against
this.—The plural φίλων» is general and
represents the English indefinite article.—
aiparnddpovs μόρους fis bloody corse
borne (home). μόρος, like the Latin /x-
nus, which was probably applied to
translate it, means not only death, but
also corpse and funeral. For examples
of the meaning corpse in later poetry,
see the Lex. s. vu. A priori it is not
likely to have been an arbitrary Alexan-
drian invention, and as a fact it occurs
in the tragedians several times, It is clear
in Soph. Ant. 1266 ἰὼ wat νέος νέῳ
ξὺν μόρῳ ἀπέθανες, where the véos μόρος is
the corpse of the young Antigone upon
which Haemon slew himself, and in Cho.
295 κακῶς ταριχευθέντα παμφθάρτῳ
μόρῳ, literally ‘ill-mumemied in a perish-
ing corpse’. So in Ag. 1245 ᾿Αγαμέμνονός
σέ gnu ἐπόψεσθαι μόρον it is not the
death of Agamemnon which the Chorus
are to see or do see, but Agamemnon
dead. In Cho. 443 λέγεις πατρῷον μόρον
the context proves that μόρον means the
corpse (or funeral), not the death, and
this explains ἐδ. 440 μόρον κτίσαι μωμένα
ἀφερκτὸν (so the MS. rightly) αἰῶνε σῷ,

, 4 Ψ 3 ΄“ σὰ ’
τούτῳ μὲν οὕτως εὐτυχεῖν δοῖεν θεοί.

(she mutilated thy murdered father) wish-
ing to put a bar between the corpse and
thy life: the object of the mutilation was
not mere insult, but, according to the
common notion of savages, to prevent the
dead man from coming back to the aid
of his avenger. Cf. also Cho. 8—9, Ag.
338, 341 ἀμφὶ σώμασιν πεπτωκότες......
ἀποιμώζουσι φιλτάτων μόρον, Soph. Az.
1050 θανόντες ἂν προυκείμεθ᾽ αἰσχίστῳ
μόρῳ, where αἴσχιστος μόρος is the expo-
sure of the corpse. By this use we
should perhaps restore and explain Cho.
926 KA. ἔοικα θρηνεῖν ζῶσα πρὸς τύμβον
μάτην. ΟΡ. πατρὸς γὰρ aloa τόνδε πωρίζεε
μόρον (MS. πορίζει). “1 cry in vain as to
a thing stone-dead. Yea, for a father’s
fate makes it thus dead and hard’. Cf.
πῶρος, πωρόῳ, and note the correspond-
ence between τύμβον and μόρον. Here
the meaning (‘carrying of the corpse’) is
shown both by the context, for the speak-
ers cannot expect to see the ‘death’, and
by the epithet. aluarndopos could not
mean simply ‘bloody’ (Zex.) and is not
a possible epithet of death. The first
part of the compound is αἷμα or αἵματα
‘a bleeding thing’, ‘bleeding corpse’,
which sense, as well as the meaning of
-popos, is precisely illustrated by Eur.
Phoen. 1503 τρίσσα φέρουσα τάδ᾽ αἵματα
σύγγονα (Antigone with corpses of Jo-
casta and her sons). Thus the adj.
repeats the two ideas combined in μόρος,
and is a compound of the same type as
ἀνδρόπαις (ἀνήρ) in v. §20.—The correct
meaning of μόρους is indicated by a note .
in the schol. οὖς ποιοῦνται ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων
πολιτῶν οἱ Θηβαῖοι--- ὑπέρ δὲ περισσή.
He joins ὑπὲρ φίλων ὁλόμενων with μόρους,
Sunerals made for dear ones dead. This
also is worth consideration.

409. The soldier ignores the last words,
and with a somewhat dry ‘ Amen’ con-
tinues his report.

ETITA ΕΠῚ QHBAS. 43

Καπανεὺς δ᾽ ἐπ’ ᾿Ηλέκτραισιν εἴληχεν πύλαις,

410

yiyas ὅδ᾽ ἄλλος τοῦ πάρος λελεγμένου
¢€ / 9 ? > ψΨ a
μείζων ὁ κόμπος δ᾽ ov κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ,
4 3 4 a a? A - Υ e
πύργοις δ᾽ ἀπειλεῖ δείν᾽, ἃ μὴ Kpalvoe τύχη
θεοῦ τε γὰρ θέλοντος ἐκπέρσειν πόλιν

καὶ μὴ θέλοντος φησίν, οὐδὲ τὴν Διὸς

415

ἔριν ᾿πέδῳ σκήψασαν ἐμποδὼν σχεθεῖν.
τὰς δ᾽ ἀστραπάς τε καὶ κεραυνίους βολὰς
μεσημβρινοῖσιν θάλπεσιν προσήκασεν.
ἔχει δὲ σῆμα γυμνὸν ἄνδρα πυρφόρον,

φλέγει δὲ λαμπὰς διὰ χερῶν ὡπλισμένη:

420

416. σχέθειν.

410. ἐπ᾽. εἴληχεν hath drawn (his
lot) for.

411. γίγας ὅδ᾽ ἄλλος a giant this
ome, not ‘another giant’. For ἄλλος as
here used there is no English equivalent :
it merely emphasizes the idea of distinc-
tion and opposition. See the Lex. s.v.
—rov...pe(Lav, an ironical compliment,
as one of the Scholl. saw, to the stature
of Capaneus, Tydeus being μικρὸς δέμας
(Hom. 27. 5. 801).

412—13. Note the emphasis on πύρ-
yos: the antithesis is between οὐ κατ᾽
ἄνθρωπον and πύργοις δεινά. Capaneus’
boast is such as befits a giant (Eur. Phoen.
1131) and no man, for towers are the
enemy whom he threatens with danger.

415—16. That there is some error
here is certain for three reasons, (1) the
omission of the object, ¢g. vu, to σχεθεῖν,
(2) the omission of ἄν, though the tense
required is the conditional future, (3) the
name Ἔριν, Discord, an inappropriate per-
sonage and not properly described as τὴν
Avs. The first might possibly pass; the
second also is disputed, though the in-
stances cited (e.g. P. V.624) are too few
and doubtful to establish the contrary ;
some (¢.g. Soph. Az. 1063) are irrelevant,
the tense not being future at all, but
general or ‘gnomic’ (English present),
describing what does happen, not what
will. The question need not, however,

be here discussed, for the third objec-
tion is fatal and the combination of the
three at any rate incredible. Moreover
the close imitation in Eur. Phoen. 1175
gives evidence for the presence of »» and
ἄν here, Καπανεὺς.. ἐκόμπασε μηδ᾽ ἂν τὸ
σεμνὸν πῦρ νιν εἰργάθειν Διός (Weil).—
I conjecture that the passage originally
stood thus—

| πέδῳ

EPAININANCKHWACAN

t.c. épal νιν ἂν σκήψασαν κτλ. where πέδῳ
is a correct interpretation of the old loca-
tive épal on the earth, related to ἐρᾶζε
as χαμαί to χαμᾶξε. The error arose
partly from the gloss, partly from the
repetition of similar syllables, partly
from a misunderstanding of τὴν Διός,
the daughter of Zeus, 1.6. Athena, who,
as specially charged with his thunders
(Zum. 833), is a personage suited to the
conception. Translate and that not even
Zeus’ daughter would stop him, were she
to light down upon the earth in his path:
her lightning and thunderous bolts etc. ΄
- πέδοι Dindorf—ovdé νιν Διὸς κεραυνὸν
ἐνσκήψαντ᾽ ἂν ἐμποδὼν σχεθεῖν Wecklein
(in his Appendix, where see other sugges-
tions).

419. γυμνὸν without armour, as one
to whom defences are unnecessary.

420. διὰ detween, a poetical variation
for ζ7ι.---ξπλισμένη armed, prepared, i.e.

44 AIZXYAOY
χρυσοῖς δὲ φωνεῖ γράμμασιν' πρήσω πόλιν.
τοιῷδε φωτὶ πέμπε---τίς ξυστήσεται ;
τίς ἄνδρα κομπάσαντα μὴ τρέσας μενεῖ;
ET. καὶ τῷδε κέρδει κέρδος ἄλλο τίκτεται.

τῶν τοι ματαίων ἀνδράσιν φρονημάτων

425

ἡ γλῶσσ᾽ ἀληθὴς γίγνεται κατήγορος"
Καπανεὺς δ᾽ ἀπειλεῖ δρᾶν παρεσκευασμένος,
θεοὺς ἀτίζων, κἀπογυμνάξων στόμα

χαρᾷ ματαίᾳ θνητὸς ὧν ἐς οὐρανὸν

423. κομπάζοντα m’.

lighted, ‘ ready for use’ (Zex.); or perhaps
borne as a weapon (ὅπλισμα), ἀνθ᾽ ὅπλον
οὖσα Schol. The first accords best with
the ordinary use of the word; the second
is perhaps somewhat supported by the
reminiscence of Euripides θύρσοις διὰ
χερῶν ὡπλισμέναι (Bacch. 732).

413. ἄνδρα κομπάσαντα the man with
the brag, i.e. the figure (v. 419) and motto
of the shield. The boast being expressed
by the letters once for all, the aor. κομπά-
σαντα is correct and necessary.—xopumd-
fovra, the correction of m adopted in
most texts, proceeds upon the error of
referring ἄνδρα to Capaneus, and spoils
the point of the line. The same error
complicates the difficulty of the next
line, by making it necessary to tefer τῷδε
also to Capaneus himself. tpéoas=
wore μὴ τρέσαι.

424. Literally, Zereby also ts produced
Jresh gain upon gain; apparently a
popular and proverbial expression signi-
fying ‘Better and better’. The point
plainly is that in the case of Capaneus,
as, or more than, in that of Tydeus, the
enemy's boast must recoil on himself
(Blomfield). For the dative κέρδει de-
pending on the notion of addition in
ἄλλο τίκτεται cf. Soph. O. 7. 175 ἄλλον
dy ἄλλῳ προσίδοις and Jebb’s note there.
For τίκτεται as a commercial metaphor
cf. τόκος. Others interpret κέρδει destre
of gain (see Lex. s. uv.) and ἄλλο κέρδος
as equivalent to ἕτερον κέρδος a gain

different from that intended, so that the
sense is ‘greed over-reaches itself’.—
τῷδε by this, te. by the emblem of Ca-
paneus as by that of Tydeus.—xay τῷδε
Hartung.

425. ἀνδράσιν, here in sense of Bpo-
τοῖς, and opposed to θεοὺς, v. 428, as
γλώσσα is contrasted with δρᾶν παρε-
oxevacpévos. We know (rot) that among
men the tongue proves true accuser of
@ foolish pride; how much more does
Capaneus expose his folly, who insults
the gods by acting his insolent inten-
tion !—There seems no reason, if the
contrasts be noted, to suspect any fault
in these lines. Kamaveds δ᾽ ἀτίζων κάἀπο-
γυμνάζων στόμα Wecklein.

427. ἀπογυμνάζων στόμα, ἃ metaphor
from the gymnasium, οἴ. γυμνάζειν and ἀπο-
πειρᾶσθαι. γυμνάζειν is to practise or
exercise the hand, for example, in casting
the javelin or quoit. So Capaneus is
ironically said to task. his mouth to the
extravagant feat of hurling his impieties
to the sky.

429. χαρᾷ ματαίᾳ, ‘in a vain
mockery’, or, as the association with
στόμα here suggests, ‘with ineffectual
grin’. The fundamental meaning of the
root xap-, as developed in Greek, is not joy
but mzrth, laughter, mockery, and the
analogy of xap-xap-ddous (epithet of the
dog) and χάροψ (as to which see below)
indicates that χαίρω, like calow, though
with a very different shade of meaning,

ΕΠΤΑ ET! ΘΗΒΑΣ. 45

πέμπει yeyova Ζηνὶ κυμαίνοντ᾽ ἔπη.

430

πέποιθα δ᾽ αὐτῷ ξὺν δίκῃ τὸν πυρφόρον

430. γεγωνᾶ.

signified originally ‘to show the teeth
or open mouth’. χαρά mirth or mockery
has several extant examples; see especi-
ally xépropos χαρά jesting mockery, Alc.
1128 (mistranslated ‘delusive joy’ in L.
and Sc.); and cf. Eur. £7. 879 ξύνανλος
Bod χαρᾷ, where /aughéer not joy is re-
quired to satisfy the notion of sound, 29}.
TZ. 832. So also yepapois ἐπίχαρτον (Ag.
723) of the playful pet which ‘makes
seniors laugh’. Still nearer to the primi-
tive sense are the present passage and
Aesch. /rag. 251, a description of the
Harpies snatching away the food of
Phineus, καὶ ψευδόδειπνα πολλὰ μαργώσης
γνάθου ἐρρυσίαζον στόματος ἐν πρώτῃ χαρᾷ
z.¢. ‘just as his mouth opened upon them’.
—As to χάροψ, Theocritus, who applies
it to Athena, proves for the Alexandrians
the modern interpretation ‘bright-eyed’
from the notion of ‘gladness’; but if
they attributed this sense to the old
poets, it was apparently one of their
many mistakes. In the old writers the
word belongs apparently to animals of
the cat (lion), dog, and monkey tribes.
The common mark of these animals is
not the eye, which in the dog and
monkey is not even conspicuous, but
the grinning mouth; which strengthens
the argument from etymology that the
true meaning of xapoy was ‘grin-faced’.
If, as some think, geerig belongs to the
same root as xalpw, the German stock
as well as the Greek exhibits a special-
ization of sense connected with the mouth,
and well illustrates the fragment of Aes-
chylus above cited.

430. γεγωνὰ Brunck, yeyorva: m.—
κυμαίνοντ᾽ ἔπη, doasts (so ἔπη often) like
waves. <A figure from the waves caused
in water by a disturbance, and finely
suggesting the contemptible dispropor-
tion between the mortal and the dome

431. πυρφόρων.

of heaven into which he shouts.

431. ξὺν δίκῃ, sf justice will, a phrase
of religious apology, like ξὺν θεοῖς, quali-
fying the temerity of πέποιθα.---αὐτῷ, to
be joined with πέποιθα. Note that this
word is emphatic both here and in z. 434.
It has been already observed, that except
with emphasis αὐτός in Aeschylus is
exceedingly rare. Here the emphasis is
all-important to the sense. Capaneus
according to the legend was actually
slain by a thunderbolt in the assault
(Eur. Phoen. 1181). The point of ve.
430—434 is that so impious a boaster
might confidently be left to the vengeance
of heaven, though for superabundant
caution (there is something of Eteocles
in this) he shall have a human opponent
(ἀνήρ, see on v. 425) also. αὐτῷ may be
either masculine or neuter. If masculine,
we may understand either (1) τῷ Ad, or
(2) rg Καπανεῖ, J rely on the man him-
self, that the thunderbolt will come, mean-
ing ‘his behaviour is enough to call it’.
If neuter, which I think better Greek,
αὐτό the thing itself refers to the whole
preceding description, and the meaning
is ‘I take assurance from the very facts’.
A prose-writer would have said αὐτῷ
τούτῳ, the absolute use being confined
in prose to the nominative, as in αὐτὸ
δηλοῖ ἐξ ἐς clear of ttself—The use of ἐπ᾽
αὐτῷ (uv. 434) is precisely like that in z,
607, δοκῶ μὲν οὖν ape μηδὲ προσβαλεῖν
πύλαις... ὅμως δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ κτλ., where see
note. It is literally ‘on the top of that
itself’, or more simply over and above
that, ἐπί having the same sense as in
τρίτος ἐπὶ δέκα, ἄτην ἐπ᾽ dry etc.—That

᾿ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ does not mean against him may

be proved, apart from the question of
emphasis, by the considerations, (1) that
ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τέτακται could only mean ‘is
appointed over him’, or ‘ranged behind

46 AIZXYAOY

ἥξειν κεραυνόν, οὐδὲν ἐξηκασμένον'
[μεσημβρινοῖσιν θάλπεσιν τοῖς ἡλίου]
ἀνὴρ δ᾽ én’ αὐτῷ, Ket στόμαργός ἐστ᾽ ἄγαν,

αἴθων τέτακται λῆμα, Πολυφόντου βία,
φερέγγυον φρούρημα προστατηρίας

435

᾿Αρτέμιδος εὐνοίαισι σύν τ᾽’ ἄλλοις θεοῖς.
λέγ᾽ ἄλλον ἄλλαις ἐν πύλαις εἰληχότα.

ΧΟ.

him’, not ‘agatnst him’, which is ἀντι-
τέτακται αὐτῷ (see Lex. 5. v. ἐπιτάσσω) ;
(2) that the occurrence of ἐπ’ αὐτῷ here
and in vw. 607 only among the seven
parallel passages, taken with the close
logical resemblance of these two, is itself
strong evidence of a sense common to
these two and peculiar to them.—rdv
πυρφόρον in answer to the πυρφόρος of
the shield (v. 419).

432. οὐδὲν ἐξῃκασμένον no counter-
Jett, like the painted threats of Capaneus,
but real; cf. Ag. 1243 κλύοντ᾽ ἀληθώς
οὐδὲν e&nxacuéva.—This rendering, though
recommended by the context and the
quotation, is impossible, if 433 be ge-
nuine. But probably this poor verse
(v. 418 with the lame addition τοῖς ἡλίου)
has itself arisen from an erroneous belief
that οὐδὲν ἐξῃκασμένον required further
explanation.

434. ordpapyos (cf. 428) prater. The

word is weak after the description of

Capaneus, but is used for contempt; un-
less indeed, as the grammar equally
allows, it is an apology for a trait in the
character of Polyphontes as known in
Theban legend.

435. αἴθων λῆμα, cf. αἴθων ὑβριστής
Αἱ. 1088, ἀνὴρ αἴθων (of the mad Aias),
16. 222. This obscure word is fixed
in literature as a general epithet (w/d,
fierce?) of animals (see Lex.) and shows
in this little trace of its connexion, if
it was so connected, with the idea of fire.
In Polyphontes (note the murderous
name) there is a /eroctty which marks

Brow” ὃς πόλει μεγάλ᾽ ἐπεύχεται,
κεραυνοῦ δέ μιν βέλος ἐπισχέθοι,

ἄντ. α΄.
440

him as a fit opponent for the monster
(ylyas) Capaneus.—réraxtras φρούρημα,
ἐς appointed defender.

430. φερέγγνον: join with the causal
dative εὐνοίαισι.

437- προστατηρίας᾿᾿Αρτέμιδος. The
προστατήριοι were statues of patron
deities placed before the door of a house,
as that of Phoebus in Soph. Z/. 637, and
those of Artemis and Aphrodite in the
opening scene of the Hippolytus. Here
Artemis, patroness of Polyphontes (as a
hunter?), and probably represented in
his blazon, is expected to prove mpo-
orarnpla in a larger sense, as champion
(προστάτης) of the town.—The Scholl.
offer two explanations, (1) that Poly-
phontes was priest of Artemis, (2) that
Thebes was specially sacred to that deity.
The text does not imply either, and the
second is probably only so far true, that
Artemis (see v. 138) was one of the
πολιοῦχοι. θεοί represented on the stage.—
σύν with the help of. —obv τ᾽ ἄλλων θεῶν,
and of other gods as well, rec, and Heim-
soeth, with great probability.

438. ἄλλαις εἰληχότα, a very doubt-
ful construction. For ἐν πύλαις in the
(allotting of the) gates see v. 363.---ἄλλας
(πύλας) ἐν πύλαις εἰληχότα would be
more clear, if not more correct.—Exit
Polyphontes. ; .

440. μιν ες M. νιν Brunck, accord-
ing to the common use of the tragedians.
But it is impossible to prove that the
form μὲν was never used by them, and
many good literary reasons might com-

ΕΠΤΑ ETT! OHBAS. 47

πρὶν ἐμὸν ἐσθορεῖν δόμον πωλικῶν θ᾽

ἐἑδωλίων ὑπερκόπῳ
δορί ποτ᾽ ἐκλαπάξαι.

AT.

[καὶ 'μὴν τὸν ἐντεῦθεν λαχόντα πρὸς πύλαις]
λέξω. τρίτῳ γὰρ ᾿Ἐτεόκλῳ τρίτος πάλος

445

ἐξ ὑπτίου ᾿πήδησεν εὐχάλκου κράνους,
πύλαισι Νηίστῃσι προσβαλεῖν λόχον.
ἵππους δ᾽ ἐν ἀμπυκτῆρσιν ἐμβριμωμένας
δινεῖ, θεχούσας πρὸς πύλαις πεπτωκέναι

φιμοὶ δὲ συρίξουσι βάρβαρον τρόπον,

450

442. ὑπερκόμπω.

mend it ina particular place. That it is
unusual is a strong reason for supposing
it genuine.

442. ἕδωλίων an equivalent for θαλά-
μων, suggested perhaps by the common
application of both words to a ship (see
Lex.). The genitive depends upon umep-
κόπῳ, as on ὑπέρ itself or on compara-
tives and other words implying superi-
ority, such as κρατεῖν, νικᾶν etc. The
object of ἐκλαπάξαι is δόμον ; and ravage
ἐξ with spear triumphant over its virgin
bowers. ἐκλαπάξαι could not be followed
by the genitive, either with or without
the pronoun pe.—trepxére Anonymus,
perhaps rightly, as the words seem to be
elsewhere interchanged (see Dindorf Zex.
Aesch, s.vv.). There is however no real
proof against ὑπερκόμπῳ except the doubt-
ful one from metrical theory.

444- Almost all the examples in
Aeschylus of a line without caesura are
open to suspicion on independent grounds;
and such a license is specially impro-
bable in the strict versification of this
play. This verse (omitted by H. Wolf)
is unnecessary and injurious, λέξω being
better explained by the λέγε of 438, to
which it replies, and inattention to this
accounts for the insertion. It is also
unprammatical.

447. Νηίστῃσι. There is no reason
for changing this form, which is a touch
from the Epic narrative, either for the

Attic Νηίσταισι, or (as Geel) for the
Boeotian Νηίτταισι. Such matters are
governed entirely by literary convention
or the caprice of the writer, and to intro-
duce system is to spoil the living work,
---οΟρηίτηισι m’.

448. ἐμβριμωμένας. There is no
classical evidence that βριμάομαι signi-
fied ‘to snort’ as is sometimes assumed,
and it is improbable that it was con-
nected with Bpéuw. βρι-μύ, according to
Hesychius, is ‘an expression of anger’;
the root seems to be that of βριθύς, Bpi-
θειν, Βριμώ, Βριάρεως, and the transition
to the idea of anger is illustrated by
βαρύς in βαρύθυμος ὀργή, ὀργὴ βαρεῖα etc.
Here the primitive idea of weight or
force is perceptible, the full sense being
straining indignantly against.—dptrv«-
τῆρσιν Aead-bands, not ‘bridles’ as L.
and Sc., a sense invented to fit the mis-
translation of ἐμβριμωμένας.

449. πρὸς πύλαις πεπτωκέναι : πρὸς
«πεπτωκέναι is the intransitive phrase
answering to the transitive προσβαλεῖν
in Ὁ. 447---Ξ|-ὸ dash against.

450. The head-gear was so made that
the breathing of the horses produced a
scream or whistle. βάρβαρον τρόπον,
after an outlandish fashion, is a touch
of contempt for the noisy instruments
of savage war, which reflects rather the
feeling of Aeschylus’ own time than of
the real ‘heroic’ age.—amnvy ἦχον Schol.

48 AIZXYAOY

μυκτηροκόμποις πνεύμασιν πληρούμενοι.
σεσημάτισται δ᾽ ἀσπὶς οὐ μικρὸν τρόπον"
ἀνὴρ δ᾽ ὁπλίτης κλίμακος προσαμβάσεις
στείχει πρὸς ἐχθρῶν πύργον, ἐκπέρσαι θέλων'

βοᾷ δὲ χοὖῦτος γραμμάτων ἐν ξυλλαβαῖς,

455

ὡς οὐδ᾽ dv ἤΑρης σφ᾽ ἐκβάλοι πυργωμάτων.
καὶ τῷδε φωτὶ πέμπε τὸν φερέγγνον
. πόλεως ἀπείργειν τῆσδε δούλιον ξυγόν.

KT,

πέμποιμ᾽ ἂν---ἤδη τόνδε, σὺν τύχῃ δέ Te"

452. εἰσημάτιστα.

452. σεσημάτισται is figured. The
correction of Weil is preferable to that

of the hand m’ (ἐσχημάτισται), both
‘technically and from the regular use of
σῆμα throughout this passage, vw. 374,
385, 419, 478, 505, 578, 63ο.---οὐ μικρὸν
τρόπον in no small fashion i.e. accord-
ing to a proud conception, cf. v. 270,
τὸν μέγαν τρόπον. The ‘largeness’ of
the device is referred by a Schol. to
its generality, as if it would say ‘no
tower can withstand me’: στείχει
πρὸς ἐχθρῶν πύργον' οὐκ εἶπεν πρὸς ποῖον
πύργον. μεγάλως οὖν φησὶ πρὸς πάντα
πύργον: but this somewhat forced ex-
planation ignores the motto.—The re-
currence of τρόπον in 450 and 452 has
suggested corrections βρόμον (Schiitz) or
νόμον (Prien) there, and τύπον (Halm) or
τροχόν (Keck) here. But in each τρόπον
is better: τύπον and τροχόν indeed give
senses positively wrong; it is not the
figure on the shield which is ‘big’ but
the style or idea of the figure. The
repetition itself may have a certain force,
and at worst is a slight defect.

453. δὲ: omitted by Blomfield and
others, but right according to the habit
of Greek. It marks an antithesis to
the negative od. The device is mot
humble, dxf proud as the description
shows: cf. wv. 412, 413.---προσαμβάσεις
accusative ‘cognate’ to στείχει, ἐς miount-
ing a ladder step above step.

455. καὶ οὗτος cf. 421.—ypapparoy
ἐν ξυλλαβαῖς by combinations of figures.

The soldier speaks as one to whom the
art of writing language is not so familiar
as to be unnoticeable. It is to be re-
membered that γράμμα does not neces-
sarily mean a “etter (see on v. 647), though
of course the ‘figures’ here are letters.
This again is probably a touch from the
Epos.

458. ἀπείργειν with gepéyyvoy one
who bears warrant that he can save
ete.

459. From all the expressions here,
from ἤδη τόνδε, which marks that the
choice is ready and obvious, and from
σὺν τύχῃ Ty With a certain happiness or
good fortune in the choice, it is plain
that the selection is suggested by some
patent fact. The same thing is con-
veyed still more strongly by the plu-
perfect ἐπέπεμπτο, and indeed he was
already sent, which implies, according
to the regular use of the tense, that the
choice may be said to have made itself,
the fitness of the person being patent
a priori. And further, as the position of
the words ov κόμπον ἐν χεροῖν ἔχων,
bearing in his hands no tdle brag, shows
that here lies the explanation of éwé-
πεμπτο, we can scarcely be wrong in
supposing that the reference is to the
blazon upon his shield, which by an ‘unde-
signed coincidence’ represents Aves, the
very god insulted by his opponent’s im-
pious emblem (v. 456). That Megareus
might well bear this device ‘not as an
idle brag’ is shown by his pedigree, the

ETTTA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ.

4 3 3 LA > an
καὶ δὴ ᾿πεπεμπτ᾽ ov κόμπον ἐν χεροῖν ὄχων,

49
460

Μεγαρεύς, Κρέοντος σπέρμα, τοῦ Σπαρτοῦ γένους"
ὃς οὔτε μάργων ὑππικῶν φρυαγμάτων

βρόμον φοβηθεὶς ἐκ πυλῶν χωρήσεται,

ἀλλ᾽ ἢ θανὼν τροφεῖα πληρώσει χθονί,

ἢ καὶ δύ᾽ ἄνδρε καὶ πόλισμ᾽ én’ ἀσπίδος
ἑλὼν λαφύροις δῶμα κοσμήσει πατρός.

stock of the Σπαρτοί having sprung from

the seed ὧν “Apns ἐφείσατο (v. 399) and

being therefore entitled to claim his
patronage. Fora similar τύχη in the oppo-
sition of blazons see inf. vv. 495—507;
where note especially τυχών in the last
line.—The later copies, misled by the
omission of the mark of elision before
᾿πεπεμπτ᾽, change πεπεμπτ' ov into πέ-
πεμπται, and are followed by all modern
editions. As however the text so pro-
duced is scarcely intelligible, it is further
supposed by most commentators that the
passage is defective, and it is argued,
in support of this, that the speech wants
6 lines of the 15 assumed to be normal.
But as to this assumption see the /xéro-
duction. In itself, the unusual brevity
of the speech is, upon the present expla-
nation, natural enough. The choice is
palpably right and needs the fewer words,
Hence also the gay and taunting tone
of the conclusion, wv. 467. There seems
to be no reason for doubting the correct-
ness of the ms.—With regard to the
‘epic’ form πέπεμπτο without augment,
it is not perhaps absolutely certain that
Aeschylus would have excluded it; but
in any case there is no question here
of MS. evidence, as in uncials the aug-
mented and unaugmented form would
be undistinguishable. In cursives the
sign of the augment is omitted frequently.
—ov τύχῃ δέ τῳ, supply πέμποιμ᾽ ἄν.
The use of τις is the common ironical use,
fairly represented by the English some or
@ certain as an equivalent for ‘great’ or
‘remarkable’.

461. Zaraprov. The expression τὸ
Σπαρτὸν γένος seems a fair poetical varia-

V. Af,

465

tion for τὸ Σπαρτῶν γένος, and need
scarcely be changed into it.—ewapréy m’.

462. μάργων (udpyor Schiitz, which,
or else ἱππικὸν, we should probably read)
JSuriously impatient; see on v. 367.

464. τροφεῖα.. χθονί : note that the
expression is peculiarly applicable to a
Zmwaprés who, proceeding from a stock
literally ‘grown of the soil’, had the
earth for his τροφός in a special sense.
See ἐθρέψατο in v. 19 and note there.

465. ἐπ' ἀσπίδος. This addition seems
at first sight tame, and doubly inaccu-
rate, for πόλισμ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος is not good
writing for πόλισμα τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος, neither
does the description apply to the πόλισμα
any more than to the second ἀνήρ, But .
the words belong primarily not to πό-
dopa but to ἑλών, and point to the
military use of ἀσπίς for ‘ the shield side’:
cf. v. 611. As the number of lines in any
particular formation was described by the
number of ‘shields’ on the flank (see Zex.
5. ἡ. ἀσπίς) so ἑλεῖν ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος is ‘to take
in line’ from the right or undefended side
towards the left. The other meaning ‘on
the shield’ is of course also glanced at,
but merely by way of jest. Cf. v. 507.

466. δῶμα πατρός: either (1), as I
think, the temple of Ares, as general
ancestor of the Thebans (v. 125) and
patron of Megareus in particular; or
(2) the house of Creon, a regal house
(Creon having reigned before the sons of
Oedipus), and as such perhaps entitled to
this quasi-divine decoration. It is evi-
dent from hes. 179—180 that λάφυρα
were held to belong properly to the tem-
ples, and they are always spoken of in
tragedy as so disposed.

4

50 AIZXYAOY

κόμπαζ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλῳ, μηδέ μοι φθόνει λέγων.

ΧΟ.

. ἐπεύχομαι δὴ τάδε μὲν εὐτυχεῖν, ἰὼ

\

στρ. β΄.

πρόμαχ᾽ ἐμῶν δόμων, τοῖσι δὲ δυστυχεῖν.

ὡς δ᾽ ὑπέρανχα Balovow ἐπὶ πτόλει
μαινομένᾳ φρενί, τώς νιν

470

Ζεὺς νεμέτωρ ἐπίδοι κοταίνων.

ΑΓ.

τέταρτος ἄλλος, γείτονας πύλας ὄχων

Ὄγκας ᾿Αθάνας, ξὺν βοῇ παρίσταται,
470. βάζουσ᾽.

467. ἐπ᾿ ἄλλῳ. This phrase is in-
correct, as Blomfield, who suggests ἔτ᾽
ἄλλον, perceived. κομπάζειν ἐπί τινι
would naturally mean ‘to boast or tri-
umph over’ another, not ‘to describe him
in high or boastful terms’, which is the
sense required. I believe ἔτ᾽ to be right,
but should prefer ἄλλω to ἄλλον, both as
nearer the MS. and as giving an effective
allusion to the δύ᾽ ἄνδρε of ν. 465, Set forth
yet another pair. As the two last shields
have each exhibited an ἀνήρ, the ex-
pectation of a third is a natural jest.
--κηδὲ... λέγων and pry'thee be liberal
of thy style. Let us have their boasts

in full, for I engage to meet them as
easily as in this case.—Aéywr Valcke-
naer.—LZxt¢ Megareus.

468. τάδε μὲν εὐτυχεῖν ... τοῖσι δὲ
δυστυχεῖν that our (choice) may be fortu-
nate, and theirs unhappy. Regularity of
antithesis would require either ἡμῖν μὲν
τάδε in the first clause, or κεῖνα for τοῖσι

τίη the second. The metre also, which
in the short lyrics of this scene is usually
exact as to the correspondence of sylla-
bles, is here not so (cf. wy. 508, 509).
There is perhaps therefore some error.
On the other hand the syllabic corres-
pondence cannot be restored without
considerable change, and the grammatical
variation is scarcely worth notice. See
further the Appendix on metres.

470. βάζονσιν. On this verb see the
editor’s note on Eur. “ε΄. 1374, where
it is shown that, in the Attic poets at
least, it did not signify fo speak, but pri-

marily to bark, Here, as in v. 558 and
in Eur. Hipp. 119 μάταια βάζει, it is used,
by a natural metaphor, of violent lan-
guage. In etymology it is an onomato-
poeia, connected with fai, Baifw, as
κρανγή is connected with κράζω.---ἐπὶ over.

472. veplrop Divider, Dispenser,
probably of the Spoil (cf. Hum. 404 τῶν
αἰχμαλώτων χρημάτων λάχος μέγα ἔνειμαν
éuol), and therefore invoked here with
reference to the expected λάφυρα.

473. See the /utroduction.—yelrovas.
Either (1) γείτονας ὧν εἶπεν (Schol.),
‘close to the gate last mentioned’; it
appears from the next line that these
gates were near together: or (2) yelro-
vas "Ογκας. But it is better that this
point should be left to Eteocles (v. 489).

474. ἄλλοφ: added, as in v. 411, to
mark a contrast between this case and
the preceding. The contrast lies in ξὺν
βοῇ : Hippomedon has not, as Eteocles
expects, a second ἀνήρ on his shield to
make his βοή (see wv. 455, 467), but
comes with a βοή of his own (v. 484).—
παρίσταται, ts taking his place beside the
last (not af his gate, which would be
“προσίσταται as in v. 524).

475- Ἱππομέδοντος σχῆμα Hippome-
don accoutred, literally ‘the accoutrement
of Hippomedon’, a phrase like Πολυ-
φόντον Bla. The word σχῆμα might
refer either to figure or equipment,
but the whole of the following descrip-
tion shows that it is his armour, and
specially his shield, which is chiefly in-
tended.—For the metrical license of the

ETITA ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ. 51

ἹἽππομέδοντος σχῆμα καὶ μέγας τύπος"

475

ἅλω δὲ πολλην---ἀσπίδος κύκλον λόέγω---
ἔφριξα δινήσαντος" οὐκ ἄλλως ἐρώ,

initial trochee a parallel is cited by
Priscian,’AAgeclBoray, ἣν ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ,
Soph. /rag. 785 (Hermann). As to Παρ-
θενοπαῖος in v.§34 see notethere. Like the
anapaest tolerated in proper names even
though not in the first foot of the verse,
it is a concession to the inevitable. In
Cho. 1047 patoxlrwves, not being a proper
name, is more doubtful.

2b. καὶ μέγας τύπος with huge em-
bossed device.—riéros, the relief upon his
shield, as in Eur. Phoen. 1130 σιδηρόνωτοις
ἀσπίδος τύποις, Rhes. 305 πέλτη χρυσο-
κολλήτοις τύποις ἔλαμπε, both in passages
closely imitated from the descriptions in
the present scene and the first directly
referring to it. See also uv. 508 αντί-
τυπον. The Lex. is not accurate as to
the use of τύπος in the tragedians; the
only place in which it may be used other-
wise than in its proper sense ‘a thing
in high relief’ is Eur. Bacch. 1332 ὄφεος
ἀλλάξει τύπον the form of a serpent, a
passage of doubtful origin and not to
be interpreted with certainty from the
loss of the context. Zum. 49 Topyelos
τύποις refers directly to such works of art
(see the following verse), and so does
Aesch. Supp. 288 Κύπριος χαρακτήρ τ᾽ ἐν
γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκ-
τόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. In Heracl. 858 νέων
βραχιόνων ἡβητὴν τύπον the prominent
moulding of the manly arm is contrasted
with that of shrunken age, and similarly
in Soph. frag. 239 μέσσον ὄμφακος τύπον
is the roundness of the full grape before
it shrivels (see the context).—The Schol.
and others take σχῆμα καὶ μέγας τύπος
as a periphrasis for the huge-fashioned
fgure ;
doubt as to this loose meaning of τύπος,
it would be most objectionable here,
where the literal sense at once suggests
itself. The evidence from the Phoenissae
and Rhesus is decisive; and the τύπος,

but apart from the general.

mentioned in the case of Hippomedon
only, was a special feature of this shield :
see the following notes.

476. And I shuddered to see the long
path—the circuit of the shield, that ts—
which ἐξ described. Swi cayros is intran-
sitive, the subject being τύπου ; the geni-
tive depends upon ἅλω, literally ‘of it
turned about’. The description is strictly
appropriate, in that the τύπος, the work in
high relief, belonged, as the sequel shows,
to the circular border. For ἅλως there
seems to be no precise English word: it is
the circular threshing-path, on which the
grain is trodden out by animals driven
round. The whole ἅλως is slightly
domed to drain it, and the centre rises
above the path. The exact form is im-
portant, as will immediately appear. πολ-
λὴν is used correctly of distance, as in
πολλὴν κέλευθον a far way.—The Lex.
and the commentators generally render
πολλὴν ἅλω vast orb or disc and δινήσαντος
when he swung tt round. But (1) the
ἅλως was not a disc, but a circular path;
(2) the words δῖνος, δινέω etc. are technical
terms for the movement of the animals in
the process of threshing, and δῖνος is
actually a synonym of ἅλως : it is there-
fore extremely improbable that d\w and
δινήσαντος as here used should have no
precise connexion; (3) πολύς is not a
synonym of μέγας : πολλὴ χώρα (Hum.
837) cited by Paley proves nothing, as it
does not describe a definite figure: hence
the conjectures πολίαν Wakefield, λευκὴν
Heimsoeth, etc.; (4) the movement of
the shield is irrelevant to the descrip-
tion of the τύπος or work upon it, and
it is this (see the next lines) which is
in question.—The Schol. import the later
meteorological sense of ‘halo’, and per-
haps this has influenced the modern
rendering. But this use (probably un-
known to Aeschylus) is really a proof

4—2

52 AIZXYAOY

ς

ὁ σηματουργὸς δ᾽ οὔ τις εὐτελὴς ἄρ᾽ ἦν,

ὅστις τόδ᾽ ἔργον ὦπασεν πρὸς ἀσπίδι,

Τυφώῶν᾽ ἱέντα πύρπνοον διὰ στόμα

480

λιγνὺν μέλαιναν, αἰόλην, πυρὸς κάσιν'

that the ἅλως proper was mot conceived
as a disc, but as a circle surrounding a
disc.—The comparison of the δῖνος or
ἅλως was probably suggested to Aeschylus
by the use of δινωτός ringed as a term of
shield-making; see Hom. //. 13. 407
ἀσπίδα ῥινοῖσι βοῶν καὶ νώροπι χάλκῳ
δινωτήν.

479. πρὸς : see on προσηδάφισται, next
note. The τύπος was an addition to the
shield as commonly shaped ¢ and the cause
of its great size.

480—483. Τυφών. A monster with
a hundred serpentine heads (éxaroyxa-
payos Aesch., Pindar), fully described in
Hesiod Zheog. 820 /oll. where he is
called, as often, Typhoeus: ἐκ δέ ai duwy
qv ἑκατὸν κεφαλαὶ ὄφιος, δεινοῖο δράκοντος.
By στόμα is perhaps intended a single
fire-breathing orifice distinct from the
hundred heads. These heads are the
πλεκτάναι ὄφεων branching snakes of v.
482, the word πλεκτάνη being borrowed
from its common application to the ten-
tacles of the cuttle-fish (see Zex. s. v.).
The shield, which as a remarkable work
of art is described with great precision,
was peculiar both in form and decora-
tion. A central part of high curvature
(κοιλογάστωρ κύκλος) was enclosed by a
frame {(περίδρομον κύτος) comparatively

(Hence the comparison to the ἅλως:
see previous note.) The subject was the
heads of Typhon. On the central part
the fire and smoke were represented in
the usual way by colouring the metal
(note μέλαινα») or by low relief; but the
snakes, or parts of them, were carried
out in full’ relief over the frame, which
supplied the necessary ground or base
(ἔδαφος) for attaching them at convenient
points. The literal rendering of vv. 482,
483 is ‘a frame surrounding a circle

hollow-within serves as additional support
to the serpent-branches’. ἔδαφος (see the
Lex.) is the proper word for the ground
of a relief: here the solid parts of the
work required a ‘further ground’ to fix
them upon, which was supplied by the
frame. The conception, whether ima-
gined by Aeschylus or taken from some
actual work, was probably suggested by a
common treatment of Athena’s aegis, in
which the snakes are partly in low relief
upon the substance of the aegis, partly
carried out freely beyond it. To arrange
such a design successfully would plainly
require no common skill, and hence the
admiration of the describer.—The scho-
lia here, though much confused, have
points of interest; (r) a correct explana-
tion of κύτος, as τὸ χώρημα τῆς ἀσπίδος
i.e. ‘that which contains the shield’, and
(2) an isolated fragment τοὺς γηγενεῖς
δρακοντόποδας ἔγραψεν, the author of
which must have perceived the all-
important fact, that the design is one
whole, the ὄφεις being parts of the
giant-figure; (3) the third note—? δὲ
περιφέρεια τῆς ἀσπίδος κύκλῳ ὀφίων els
ἑαυτοὺς ἄντικρυς ὁρώντων καὶ ἐμπεπλεγμένων
τὰ τέλη ἔχει ἐγγεγραμμένα (or ἐγγεγραμ-
μένου) πρὸς τὰ τέλη. ἡ ἀσπὶς ἡ κοίλη πρὸς
τῇ γαστρὶ τοῦ κατέχοντος αὐτὴν ofca—has
been injured. But it appears to be a
confused version of two correct notes to
this effect ; (i) ἡ δὲ περιφέρεια τῆς ἀσπίδος
τῶν ὄφεων τὰ τέλη ἔχει ἐγγεγραμμένα
(‘the outer circuit of the shield has the
ends of the snakes carved upon it’), and
(ii) ἡ ἀσπὶς κοίλη πρὸς τὸ κατέχον αὐτὴν
οὖσα (‘the shield being hollow as com-
pared with its containing frame’).—tléyra.
For the quantity of the v cf, Eur. Mec.
338, [ph. 7. 298 (Paley).

481. asmoke red and flickering, next

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. 53

ὄφεων δὲ πλεκτάναισι περίδρομον κύτος
προσηδάφισται κοιλογάστορος κύκλον᾽
αὐτὸς δ' ἐπηλάλαξεν. ἔνθεος δ᾽ “Apes

βακχᾷ πρὸς ἀλκήν, Θυιὰς ὥς, φόβον βλέπων.

485

τοιοῦδε φωτὸς πεῖραν εὖ φυλακτέον᾽
φόβος γὰρ ἤδη πρὸς πύλαις κομπάζεται.

ET.

πρῶτον μὲν “Oya Παλλάς, hr’ ἀγχίπτολις

πύλαισι γείτων, ἀνδρὸς ἐχθαίρουσ᾽ ὕβριν,

¥ a ε f [
εἴρξει νεοσσῶν ὡς δράκοντα δύσχιμον'

490

Ὑπέρβιος δὲ κεδνὸς Οἴνοπος τόκος

of kin ο γέ. μέλας ‘crimson’, see v. 43.
---αἰόλος ‘of varied colour’, #.¢. shot with
fiery gleams (see Lex.).—aupds Kaots, t.¢.
‘almost fire’. The three epithets (πυρὸς
κάσιν being in effect an adjective) all de-
scribe the same fact, that the smoke was
fiery.—This punctuation suits the point
better than λιγνὺν μέλαιναν, αἰόλην πυρὸς
κάσιν, as it is usually printed.

484. αὐτὸς. To complete the effect
of his Typhon, he himself supplied the
terrible voice (cf. Hes. Zeog. 829).

485. βακχᾷ. Note change of tense.

487. For his vaunted terror ts al-
ready at the gate. φόβος has an active
sense, somewhat as in v. 256, and is
used, like δεῖμα, for the terrible thing,
the shield with its formidable design.
For κομπάζεται cf. κόμπον in v. 460.
The predicate of the sentence, notwith-
standing the position of φόβος, seems
to lie in ἤδη πρὸς wédats.—The line has
been variously corrected (φόνος Blom-
field, φοῖτος Weil) and even pronounced
spurious, but the order of the words,
which is really the only difficulty, is
scarcely a sufficient reason.

488. ἀγχίπτολις γείτων. See the J#-
troduction. In the connexion of Pallas
with this particular gate, there is a τύχη
Tis (νυ. 459), Pallas with her aegis having
assisted Zeus in the conquest of Typhoeus
and the other γηγενεῖς. Cf. Hor. Carm.
111. 4. 53 ‘sed quid Typhoeus aut validus
Mimas...contra sonantem Palladis aegida
possent ruentes?’ Both as goddess and

as virgin she is offended by the ἀνδρὺς
ὕβρις.

490. δράκοντα : the comparison is
pointed at the ‘7'yphon’.—Bbo, mov win-
tered, wintry-cold, δυσχείμερον Schol., an
exaggeration of the common-place epi-
thet ψυχρὸς (S¢is) meaning ‘poisonous’
from the effect of the venom. As the
nest fixes the scene in the spring-time,
there is probably intended a further sug-
gestion that the creature has gathered
cold in its winter’s torpor.—The theory
that δύσχιμος is formed by a suffix -χιμος
simply from δυσ- and means ‘harmful’
or ‘bad’, even if scientifically correct,
has no bearing on the interpretation; for
it is certain that Aeschylus connected it
with χείμων and the idea of cold or
storm; see frag. 379 δέσποινα δυσχίμων
ὁρῶν and ers. 570 Opens δυσχίμους
κελεύθους. In Cho. 185 tears of misery
are termed δύσχιμος πλημμυρίς both as
copious and as ‘cold’ by contrast to the
warm tears of joy. Against this connex-
ion there is no example. Scientifically
it is more than doubtful whether a word
could be formed from δυσ- as a root, and
whether -χιίμος is a possible termination.
The form of μελάγχιμος (purple-dark ἢ)
proves nothing; from ‘storm’ to ‘dark-
ness’ is a slight transition, and for the
absorption of the idea in that of
colour, compare our ‘snow-white’ and
‘coal-black’. Here the rendering ‘harm-
ful’ would destroy the poetry of the epi-
thet.

54

AIZXYAOY

ἀνὴρ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα τοῦτον ἡρέθη, θέλων
ἐξιστορῆσαι μοῖραν ἐν χρείᾳ τύχης,
οὔτ᾽ εἶδος οὔτε θυμόν---οὐδ᾽ ὅπλων σχέσιν

μωμητός, “Ἑρμῆς δ᾽ εὐλόγως συνήγαγεν.

495

ἐχθρὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ ἀνδρὶ τῷ ξυστήσεται,
ξυνοίσετον δὲ πολεμίους ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδων
θεούς" ὃ μὲν γὰρ πύρπνοον Tuday’ ἔχει,
Ὑπερβίῳ δὲ Ζεὺς πατὴρ ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος

σταδαῖος ἧσται, διὰ χερὸς βέλος Pryor"

500

κοὔπω τις εἶδεν Ζῆνά που νικώμενον.
τοιάδε μέντοι προσφίλεια δαιμόνων.

496. ἀνὴρ---ξυντήσεται.

492. dvip κατ᾽ ἄνδρα susted to him
as man to man, the answer to his Ty-
phoean challenge being left to the gods.
—pl0n was chosen, when he was se-
lected to be one of the seven: but the
ἄγγελος may refer it to the moment when
Eteocles began to speak.—ov& sor...
either marks the device as a fresh point,
noticed in the moment of speaking.

493- Keady to enquire his doom of
Jortune’s oracle, literally ‘in consultation
of fortune’. For this description of the
courageous mood, see on wv. 54. AS
χρεία φίλων is a synonym for τὸ χρῆσθαι
φίλοις (see Lex. s.v.), so here, as ἐξισ-
τορῆσαι shows, χρεία is poetically used
in another sense of xpyois or τὸ χρῆσθαι,
ves. ‘to consult (an oracle)’. There is no
other clear example, but in Soph. O. 7,
725 wy dy θεὸς χρείαν ἐρευνᾷ ῥᾳδίως αὐτὸς
φανεῖ, it simplifies the thought to take
xpelay as an accusative ‘cognate’ in the
sense of enquiry: ‘God’, the sense will
then be, ‘will be his own oracle’.—
χρείᾳ δορός Wecklein.

495. ‘Eppys chance, inasmuch as in
the choice the appropriateness of his
emblem was not considered. See on v.
459-

496. ὁ... τῷ demonstrative pronouns,
see vY. 372, 531: the predicate of the
sentence is ἐχθρὸς, and the construction is
ἐχθρὸς ξυστήσεται οὗτος ἐκείνῳ, ἀνὴρ ἀνδρί,

z.¢. the human adversaries will be per-
sonal enemies.—7q might also be relative
(ἐχθρός ἐστιν ὁ ἀνὴρ τῷ ἀνδρὶ, ᾧ ξυστή-
σεται), but in that case the balance of the
antithesis would require τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ κτλ.
—Note that this verse assumes ἃ legend-
ary history lost to us. There are pro-
bably more allusions of the same kind,
which we do not perceive.

500. σταδαῖος ἧσται sits firm, as if
awaiting the attack in contemptuous
majesty. In Pers. 243 σταδαῖος describes
the Greek spear in opposition to the
Oriental bow.—8ul...préyow while his
bolt takes fire from hts hand, literally
‘enflaming-his bolt by means of his hand’.
This is truer to the language, as well as
more poetical, than ‘ with a burning bolt
in his hand’, The phrase διὰ χερός ap-
pears to be unique in Aeschylus, for in
Pers, 242 it does not satisfy the metre:
διὰ χερῶν (v. 420) is of course different.

501. εἶδεν in artistic representation,
the victories of Zeus being a familiar
theme.

502. Such, ἐξ is true, is the gratitude
of heaven. Butetc.,or So much, however,
Jor obliging a god! Still ac. The sense of
the unique word προσφίλεια is to be de-
termined by that of προσφιλής, which,
applied to persons, signifies ‘one who
obliges’ or ‘is obliged’. See Lex. s. vu.
Soph. PArl. 532, 558, 587. The differ-

ETITA ETT! OHBAS. | 56

πρὸς τῶν κρατούντων δ᾽. ἐσμέν, οἱ 8 ἡσσωμένων,
εἰ Ζεύς γε Τυφῶ καρτερώτερος μάχῃ,

Ὑπερβίῳ τε---πρὸς λόγον τοῦ σήματος

505

> ἡ é ww 9 9 ‘

εἰκός ye πράξειν ἄνδρας ὧδ᾽ ἀντιστάτας---
A / 3 a > 93 > 4

σωτὴρ γένοιτ᾽ dav Ζεὺς én’ ἀσπίδος τυχών.

ΧΟ.

πέποιθα τὸν Διὸς ἀντίτυπον ἔχοντα

avr. β΄.

506. πρᾶξιν.

ence between φίλος and προσφιλής is well
shown by Eur. Hec. 982 φίλος μὲν ef σὺ
προσφιλὲς δέ μοι τόδε στράτευμ᾽ ᾿Αχαιῶν,
‘thou art my friend (of old), and I have
(now) obliged the Greeks’.—The sense
of this line has scarcely been considered,
owing to the prevalent assumption that
the speech is garbled (see Wecklein Ap-
pendix). Note carefully μέντοι, which
shows that this is a qualification, not
a confirmation, of what precedes. The
explanation is not far to seek. The story
of the Titans and their war with Zeus is
variously told, but it is agreed that the
victor abused his strength and treated un-
gratefully and perfidiously even his allies,
among them Tata, the Earth (Aesch.
P. V. 226 foll.), and that his later con-
flicts (the subjugation of Typhoeus being
the very last) were due to their anger.
The story of Typhoeus had thus its
sinister as well as its encouraging aspect
for the worshipper of Zeus; and that this
aspect of the legend was deeply in-
teresting to Aeschylus we know well;
for upon it is founded the tragedy of
Prometheus. The touch of irrepressible
scepticism and sarcasm conveyed in the
present allusion is characteristic of the
speaker, and points the otherwise point-
less repetition which follows. ‘Still’,
he continues, ‘we are on the victorious
side of the story, and will draw such
omen (εἰκός γε) as we may’.—The verse
is commonly interpreted, by those who
do not emend or eject it, ‘Such is the
friendship of gods to the respective com-
batants’. But this (as Hermann and
others saw) takes no account of μέντοι :

neither does it satisfy προσφίλεια. Paley
explains μέντοι as resuming the argument
after v. 501; but there is no interruption.
In most texts the passage is reconstructed
freely by omissions or alterations.
504—508. Punctuated as above these
lines do not require alteration. 506 at
least must be parenthetic, and πρὸς λό-
γον τοῦ σήματος (on the analogy of the
emblem of each) belongs best to the
parenthesis. εἰ Ζεύς.. .τυχών is one clause,
af ‘ Zeus’ is any way a better fighter than
‘Typhon’, and Hyperbius—there ts a like-
lihood in that at all events—may well find
ὦ σωτήρ in his fortunate emblem. The
expression is confused and hesitating,
but so it should be, when a man wishes
to say what he only half believes. Note
the emphasis on Ὑπερβίῳ. The belief of
Eteocles in his champion is decidedly
more solid than his trust in the divine
aid.—YTwepBly δὲ Butler, εἰκὸς δὲ m’.
506. ἄνδρας ὧδ᾽ ἀντιστάτας the men
here opposed, as the deities in the legend.
507. τυχών. See on κυρεῖν v. 388.
σωτὴρ, a familiar title of the god.—The
latter part of this speech has been treated
as corrupt, partly on the ground of the
repetitions, partly because the speech
is longer than that of the ἄγγελος which
precedes. But the first objection dis-
appears upon the explanation of v. 502,
and the assumption of corresponding
length in the speeches is not warranted.
508. On the metre see Afppendtx.
πέποιθα, The dubious religion of the
prince calls out an energetic expression
of faith.—Aws ἀντί-τυπον 45 τύπος
opposed to the figure of Zeus’: for τύπος

56 AIZXYAOY

ἄφιλον ἐν σάκει τοῦ yOovlov δέμας

δαίμοσιν, ἐχθρὸν εἴκασμα βροτοῖσί τε

καὶ δαροβίοισι θεοῖσι,

510

πρόσθε πυλᾶν κεφαλὰν ἰάψειν.

ΑΓ.

Υ͂
οὕτως γένοιτο.

τὸν δὲ πέμπτον αὖ λέγω,

πέμπταισι προσταχθέντα Βορραίαις πύλαις,
τύμβον κατ᾽ αὐτὸν Διογενοῦς ᾿Αμφίονος. 515
ὄμνυσι δ᾽ αἰχμὴν ἣν ἔχει, μᾶλλον θεοῦ
σέβειν πεποιθὼς ὀμμάτων θ᾽ ὑπέρτερον,
514. βορρέαις.

see Ὁ. 475. Connect thus, τὸν ἔχοντα ἐν
σάκει, Δ. dvr., δέμας τοῦ χθονίον Ad. δαίμ.

509. ἄφιλον... δαίμοσιν, who hath no
deity for friend: δαίμοσιν is ‘ethic’ dative,
‘in the regard of deities ’.—The correction
of Brunck, δαίμονος, obliterates the mean-
ing of the phrase, which replies obliquely
to the insinuation of Eteocles (502);
Typhon had never a friend in heaven.
Nor perhaps would the maidens have be-
stowed the name δαίμων upon the mon-
ster.

512. κεφαλὰν in allusion to the head
or heads of Typho on the shield. See
the description of the battle in Hesiod
(Zheog. 855) ἀμφὶ δὲ πάσας ἔπρεσε θεσ-
πεσίας κεφαλὰς δεινοῖο πελώρου.

514. On the topography and on Am-
phion see the /#troduction. The empha-
sis on the fact that Parthenopaeus’ post is
‘just in face of the grave’ of a Διογενής
takes a certain significance from v. 519.
—Boppatas, the Attic form (Porson).

Βορρέαις would not be a correct form ac-
‘cording to any known dialect ; but it is
impossible to say with certainty what
form was used, or even that Boppéas is
wrong. See on v. 447.

516—518. He swears by a spear-head.
This is mentioned by the way as a note-
worthy trait of the savage Arcadian,
rather than as a description of his be-
haviour before the gate, as is shown by
the significant reference ‘fotidem verbis
to the oath taken by the seven chiefs
before the attack (cf. vv. 47, 518). The

spy in his previous excursion observed
the peculiar gesture and formula, and
recalls it now. The resumption of the
main narrative is marked by the other-
wise superfluous pronoun 8 in v. 523.
This deserves notice, as it justifies the

~position of the allusion, before the refer-

ence to his parentage and name, which
would naturally be expected here: the
irregular order of thought has suggested
suspicion of the text.—atxpiv ἣν ἔχει ἃ
spear-head, that he has; the addition notes
the thing as a precious possession. This
legend is curious, as bearing marks of an
origin earlier than the use of metals. The
type of religion itself indicates a primi-
tive condition, and from the analogy
of savage habits in general it is probable,
that in the original story the adored
spear-head was a fetish-stome, such as
are worshipped and used for weapons
by barbarians of all regions. Even in
historical times Arcadia was in religion
as in other respects comparatively bar-
barous, and ‘the stone-age’ must natur-
ally have been prolonged there far later
than on the more accessible sea-board.
It is of course unnecessary to suppose
that Aeschylus himself understood the
character of the object or would have
referred the worship of the spear-head
to this cause.

516—17. Which he trusts more than a
god for sacredness and better than sight.
σέβειν is an ‘epexegetic’ infinitive, ex-
plaining πεποιθὼς (αὐτῇ) μᾶλλον θεοῦ,

Pre

ἜΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ. 57

ἢ μὴν λαπάξειν ἄστυ Καδμείων Bia.
Διὸς τόδ᾽ αὐδᾷ ματρὸς ἐξ ὀρεσκόου

a thing to worship’. Both the position
and sense of the word show that it affects
the first part of the phrase only, and not
ὀμμάτων ὑπέρτερον. The construction is
the same in the parallel cited by Liddell
and Scott, χρήμασι ἐπεποίθεσαν διωθέεσθαι
(Herod. Ix. 88) they trusted in money as a
means of escape. The translation given
by the Lexicon for the present passage,
‘ daring to worship ’, is not consistent with
the use of the verb; πεποιθὼς σέβειν would
mean ‘sure that he worships’. --ὀμμάτων
ὑπέρτερον. This difficult expression is
commonly taken to mean, that the αἰχμή
was ‘dearer to him than his eyes’. But
this, were it to the purpose, cannot be
got from the words: ‘to trust’ is not
the same as ‘to value’, nor is there any-
thing to show that ὀμμάτων is less general
than θεοῦ. Even if σέβειν could be con-
strued with ὑπέρτερον, and σέβειν ὄμματα
were a natural way of speaking, there
would still be the objection that ὀμμάτων,
if parallel to θεοῦ, is an anticlimax. The
question is, in what sense a weapon can
be described as ‘trusted more than eyes’,
But in the case of a magical weapon, a
fetish, which, according to the common
belief of such worshippers, could see tts
oun way to the mark and thus surpass
the power of the directing aim, such a
phrase does not appear unintelligible;
and the comparison is the more natural
from the common application to the eye
of metaphors from shooting and aiming,
ὀμμάτων βέλος, ὄμματος τόξευμα etc. For
ὑπέρτερον there is an analogy in Eur.
Hipp. 530 οὔτε γὰρ πυρὸς οὔτ᾽ ἄστρων
ὑπέρτερον βέλος, οἷον ἴησιν “Ἔρως. Anthro-
pomorphic religion says, as Homer and
Virgil frequently say, that ‘a god’ guides
the javelin; in fetish-religion, like that of
Parthenopaeus, the javelin is a god and

518—519. βίᾳ Διός".

literally ‘trusting it more than a god as"

guides itself. In considering what Iati-
tude of sense can be given to obscure ex-
pressions like this, we have to remember
that the Greek audience had two aids
which we have not, the familiar epic story
and the usage of common life. Both or
either of these might interpret a formula
like this ὀμμάτων ὑπέρτερον with imme-
diate certainty. That it is genuine, the
very peculiarity of it forbids us to doubt.
—The punctuation of Hermann, joining
ἣν ἔχει πεποιθωώς (which he trusts), has
been rightly abandoned by recent edit-
ors : ἔχω πεποιθώς is not sound grammar.
518. The comparison of this with
v. 47 shows conclusively that the sen-
tence ends at βίᾳ and not, according to
the punctuation of the Μ5., at Διός. See
the note there. The sense is known to
be complete at βίᾳ, and the unexpected
addition of Διός is intolerable to the ear.
Moreover, the words ‘in spite of Zeus’
are so pointless, that many texts adopt,
after Hermann, the conjecture of the
later copies, δορός. But see next note.
519. Διὸς ματρὸς ἐξ ὀρεσκόον βλάσ-
τὴμα the offspring of Zeus by her who -
dwelt upon the mountains. Of Atalanta,
mother of Parthenopaeus, the Attic
tragedians relate no more than this,
that she was a companion of Artemis,
a maiden huntress (κόρη, κυναγός) who
lived remote from men in the forests of
Mount Maenalus in Arcadia, and took
part in the famous hunt of the Calydonian
boar (Soph. O. C. 1320, Eur. Phoen,
150, 1106, 11533 Supp. 888). The pa-
rentage of her child, like that of the
prophet in the Lady of the Lake, was in
the original story a mystery. This is
implied by Sophocles and Euripides,
who describe him always as the son of
Atalanta, and proved by the many
conflicting hypotheses of the legend-

58 AIZXYAOY

βλάστημα καλλίπρῳρον, dvdpdrais ἀνήρ.

520

στείχει δ᾽ ἴουλος ἄρτι διὰ παρηίδων,
ὥρας φνούσης, ταρφὺς ἀντέλλουσα θρίξ.

compilers, Pausanias, Hyginus, etc. (See
Smith’s Dict. Myth. under Atalanta and
Parthenopaeus.—From the language of
Sophocles (/.¢.) ἐπώνυμος τῆς πρόσθεν
ἀδμήτης χρόνῳ μητρὸς λοχευθείς it seems
that the legend connected his very name
with this mystery, as if it were παῖς τῆς
wap0évov. The writers who make Mi-
lanion his father are most probably con-
fusing two wholly different stories.
Nothing in the references of the tra-
gedians indicates that the mother of Par-
thenopaeus was the Atalanta of the
famous race.—Now it is to be noticed
that what we have here is the version of
the story given dy Parthenopacus himself.
The boastful description of his parentage
is guoted, as the poet is careful to mark,
by introducing into it the foreign-sound-
ing form parpds, wrongly changed for the
common μητρὸς in the later copies and
modern texts. Such a personage would
of course claim a divine father, and the
higher the more likely; to style himself
‘son of Zeus ᾽15 simply to put the mystery
in the most advantageous form. Compare
the speculations as to the parentage of
Oedipus in Oed. Tyr. 1098 foll. It
is needless to refer to the many legends
in which Zeus plays a similar part. Nor
would the fatherhood of Zeus necessarily
impeach his title of wats τῆς παρθένου
(cf. Δ Vi 874—877 ἐνταῦθα δὴ σε Ζεὺς
τίθησιν ἔμφρονα ἐπαφώῶν ἀταρβεῖ χειρὶ καὶ
θιγὼν μόνον. ἑπώνυμον δὲ τῶν Διὸς γεννη-
μάτων τέξεις κελαινὸν "Ἐπαφον)ὴ;: and it is
a significant fact that Martial (x. 4. 3)
classes Parthenopaeus with Attis among
the monstra or miracles of ancient legend.
There is no reason therefore to doubt the
traditional text, if properly punctuated ;
and the more so as the mention of a
father is almost required to justify the
expression ἐξ ματρός.

ὀρεσκόον. This word points to an

animal origin of this legend, for it im-
plies that she lived, like the beasts of
the forest, in a ‘ covert ’.or lair.

520. καλλίπρῳρον in deauty’s prime ;
cf. Ag. 245 στόματος καλλιπρῴρον (of
Iphigenia at the sacrifice). It is creating
unnecessary difficulty to derive this word
from πρῷρα in the sense of prow; 4
πρῷρα (τῆς vews) means properly the
JSore-part, being derived from the stem
wpw- or mpwi- with noun-suffix. The
ancient derivation from mpo-elpecla is of
course wrong. In καλλίπρῳρος we have
a relic of the same word in a éemporal
sense. That this sense, as well as that of
space, originally belonged to the stem
we know from the adverb πρώ or πρωΐ,
carly, where it became fixed to the ex-
clusion of the local. Naturally the
familiar sense of πρῷρα would influence
and limit the use of καλλίπρῳρος, and
Aeschylus, if we may judge from two
examples, seems to have suspected ἃ com-
parison between a prow and the lines of
a beautiful mouth, and to have been
thinking here chiefly of the ‘ unrazored
lip’. In Euripides, as we might expect,
the usage of prose has triumphed; and
the word is applied toa ship (Med. 1335).
Neither in prose nor in poetry is there
any indication that rpgpa meant ‘a face’
(see Lex. 5. v.). In Cho. 390, πάροιθεν
δὲ πρῴρας δριμὺς ἄηται xpadlas θυμός, it
means literally prow (note ἄηται blows)
and metaphorically mouth (upon the same
evidence). In Soph. Zrach. 13 ἀνδρείῳ
κύτει Bovrpypoy, it means fore-part, but
Sophocles, like Aeschylus, propitiates
usage by the antithesis of κύτος (ἦι).
Both poets are imitating cautiously the
freedom of earlier language ; and in the
present passage the influence of πρῴρα
prow, if discernible, is still remote.

522. The poets seem, notwithstanding
the legendary derivation, to have some-

pun

“24

ETTTA ΕΠῚ ΘΗ͂ΒΑΣ. - 59

ὃ δ᾽ ὠμόν, οὔτι παρθένων ἐπώνυμον,
φρόνημα, γοργὸν δ᾽ ὄμμ᾽ ἔχων, προσίσταταε----

οὐ μὴν ἀκόμπαστός γ᾽ ἐφίσταται πύλαις"

525

τὸ γὰρ πόλεως ὄνειδος ἐν χαλκηλάτῳ
σάκει, κυκλωτῷ σώματος προβλήματι,

times interpreted the name Παρθεν-οπαῖος
to mean ‘girl-faced’; cf. Euripides’ de-
scription (Phoen. 150) καταβόστρυχος, ὄμ-
peace γοργὸς εἰσιδεῖν, and see next note.

523. Savage his heart, and sutting no-
τοῦδέ his maiden name, but maiden-proud
hts flashing eye, as he comes etc. From
the use of δέ there must be a contrast in
the two parts of the description; which
contrast, as it is not to be found in
the ideas ὠμός and γοργός, must lie in
the fact that in the γοργὸν ὄμμα he was
maiden-like, though in the ὠμὸν φρόνημα
he was not. Aeschylus is thinking of the
Athenian use of yopywms and the Athe-
nian sense of ἡ Παρθένος, both of them
familiar titles of the goddess Athena.
The word γοργός (see the Zex. and cf.
γοργώψ, “γοργωπός) is applied almost al-
ways to the eye, and appears to have sig-
nified properly dright flashing (see P. V.
372 γοργωπὸν σέλας etc.). Once or twice
(e.g. Eur. Andr. 459) it describes the flash
of armour. The expression of feature,
which it marks, is well seen in Euripides’
graphic description of the personified
Athens ($$. 322) where, like Aeschylus
here, he had the patron-goddess in
mind,—

κεκερτομημένη

τοῖς κερτομοῦσι γοργὸν ὡς ἀναβλέτπει,
and by Xenophon’s use of it (see Zex.),
as the epithet of young and spirited
horses. It signifies the fash of sensitive
pride ; and as applied to the ὄμμα παρ-
θένον may be compared with the use of
πῶλος for a maid (παρθένος ἄζυξ) ; see v.
440. The renderings grim, terrible etc.
miss the point.—The later copyists per-
ceived that .δὲ required an explanation,
and not finding one, changed it to τε.

524. προσίσταται.. πύλαις ἐς faking

his post...at the gate; cf. Ὁ. 55). Thecon-
struction is broken off in order to substi-
tute ἐφίσταται, but there should be no
strong stop at the end of v. 524.

525. ἐφίσταται, The change of word
is of course significant—yet not without
proud announcement watting: ἐπιστῆναι
(τύλαι5) is the fixed expression for a person
presenting himself at an entrance, as in
Euripides several times, He/. 779 ποίοις
ἐπιστὰς βαρβάροις πυλώμασν; Phoen.
284 τίνες ἐφεστᾶσιν δόμοις; Supp. 755,
72. A. 862, Bacch. 319 (where it de-
scribes the attendance for the purpose
of audience ‘before the gate of a great
person): ἐφίστασθαι (pres. tense) is ‘to
continue in that position, to wait’. For
this ἐπιστῆναι in reference to a city see
Herod. Iv. 203. Parthenopaeus though
waiting admission announces by his em-
blem his intention to pass. (In Liddell
and Scott’s Lex. 5. Ὁ. the present passage,
by an oversight, is classed under the
sense pracesse, to be in command.)—
dxépracros is taken from the same
vocabulary, κόμπος and κομπάζειν being
used of a ‘style’ or honourable dis-
tinction by which a person describes him-
self; so of the parentage (Eur. A/c. 500),
of the country etc. (Bacch. 461), and
of the occupation (Zum. 209, Soph. Az.
11232, £/. 1500). Here as throughout
this scene the κόμπος is the blazon of the
shield.—Note the subtle device by which
the contrast of xpoclorara: and ἐφ-ίστα-
ται is enforced. The rhythin of the line,
in verse so regular as this, compels the
division of the word, and thus gives pro-
minence to the preposition.

526. πόλεως ὄνειδος, as having preyed
upon the citizens, till her riddle was
answered by the stranger Oedipus.

AIZXYAOY

Σφίγγ᾽ ὠμόσιτον προσμεμηχανημένην

γόμφοις ἐνώμα, λαμπρὸν

φέρει δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ αὑτῇ φῶτα Καδμείων ἕνα,

528. προσμεμηχανημένην γόμφοις, at-
tached to (the shield) by an enginery of
bolts. The figure of the Sphinx was &x-
κρουστον, ἴ.6. made of a metal plate, beat-
en out into a relief. It was separate from
the surface of the shield and moveable.
See Eustathius p. 1160, 49 (cited by
Hermann) ἴσως δὲ καὶ μηχανῇ τινι ἐκι-
νοῦντο, ἔκκρουστα ὄντα καὶ οὐ διόλου προση-
λωμένα τῷ σάκει. καὶ οὕτω ἐφάνταζον τοῖς
ὁρῶσι τὸ αὐτοκίνητον, ὅποιον δή τι πλάττει
καὶ Αἰσχύλος ἐν τοῖς Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας.
The attachment is described briefly and
not by any means clearly, in remarkable
contrast with the precision of detail in
the shield of Hippomedon. Probably
this Sphinx is, as Eustathius supposed,
a work of pure imagination. As γόμφοι
are commonly #az/s used in carpentry,
the simplest supposition is, that here they
are things like nails, pieces of metal
hooked into the ἔκκρουστον, passing
through small holes in the shield, and
secured on the inner side by buttons like
nail-heads. The ἔκκρουστον would thus
swing freely and have an appearance of
movement. See further on w. 629.
Euripides (Phoen. 1124) imagines a yet
more wonderful example of moveable
figures, but is yet vaguer as to the
machinery; it was done, he says, by ‘a
clever arrangement of hinges’ or ‘pivots’,
εὖ πως στρόφιγξιν.----ἐνώμα he made it
move, worked it. The imperfect tense
is correctly used of the temporary action,
which the speaker saw. φέρει, she carries,
in Ὁ. 530 with equal correctness of what
is permanently true. That the copyist
did not fall into the natural error γόμ-
φοισι νωμᾷ (which has been proposed
as a correction) is a re-assuring proof of
accuracy.

530. Zhe Sphinx beneath her carries
a Cadmean man, and never for any one
before did she fly through such a cloud

ἔκκρουστον δέμας"
530

of spears: it looks as though, once ar-
rived, he will do no petty dealing in the
trade of war, but something worth the
Jar journey that he has made. The equi-
valent in prose terms for v. 531 would be
ὥστε πλεῖστα ἐφ᾽ ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ τούτῳ βέλη δια-
πτέσθαι: ἕνα, ἀνδρὶ, and πλεῖστα being the
elements, poetically varied in arrange-
ment, of the familiar locution πλεῖστ(α)
els ἀνήρ, for which see the Lex. s. Ὁ. els.
For τῷ cf. v. 496 (a close parallel) and
see vv.179, 372. For ἐπί with the dative of
the cause or object of an action cf. ἐπὶ
τυραννίδι (to gain despotic power) τι ποιεῖν
and other examples in the Zex. s. v. ἐπί.
The use of ws is difficult to class with
precision and certainty. It may be only
a simple consecutive use, ‘so that she
has flown’; but the case and position of ἕνα
rather suggest such analogies as ὀλίγοι
ws ἐγκρατεῖς εἶναι few to be conquerors,
ψυχρὸν ὥστε λούσασθαι ὕδωρ water cold to
wash in, els being used as a term of
quantity, like ὀλίγος. Meineke proposed
to read Kadpelwv’ (ἐ.4. Kaduclwva), ἑνὶ ws
xrX., which is simpler, but we cannot
safely assume that a poetical phrase of
this kind admits a strict and logical
analysis. (It should be observed that els
is not found as a mere equivalent for τις :
in the apparent examples it generally
signifies nearly geévis ‘any one, equal
to one, merely one’; see Eur. Med.
945, Or. 264, Bacch. 917, Soph. Zi.
1342. In Soph. Ant. 269 λέγει τις εἷς
és πάντας κτλ. there is an antithesis be-
tween εἷς and πάντας, and so elsewhere.)—
The selection of the Sphinx as the em-
blem of ‘Parthenopaeus’ was perhaps
suggested to Aeschylus or some prede-
cessor by the form of the monster, rap0é-
νιον πτέρον, Eur. Phoen. 806. In the com-
ment of the d+yyedos the recent enter-
prise of the ‘Sphinx’ is contrasted with
her former depredations, when she swoop-

baal

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAS. 61

ὡς πλεῖστ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρὶ τῷ διαπτέσθαι βέλη.
ἐλθὼν δ᾽ ἔοικεν οὐ καπηλεύσειν μάχην,
μακρᾶς κελεύθου & οὐ καταισχυνεῖν πόρον.
[ΠΠαρθενοπαῖος ᾿Αρκάς" ὁ δὲ τοιόσδ᾽ ἀνήρ,

μέτοικος, "Ἄργει δ᾽ ἐκτίνων καλὰς τροφάς,
πύργοις ἀπειλεῖ τοῖσδ᾽ ἃ μὴ κραίνοι θεός.

531. τῷδ᾽ ἰάπτεσθαι.
ed suddenly upon her Cadmean, and
carried him off, as Euripides says (Phoen.
808), ‘into the pathless air’ securely, and
not, as now she must, through number-
less assailing weapons. Thus interpreted,
the device is seen to imply the idea of
a severe and unwonted labour under-
taken; and leads (note ἔοικεν) to the
thought that Parthenopaeus, having
come all the way from distant Arcadia,
will not easily be balked of his intended
capture. Thus the ἄγγελος ends as usual
by emphasizing the danger.—paxpas κε-
λεύθον is practically an adjective to
πόρον, as it were μακρο-κέλενθον : the

close connexion of the words justifies -

the postponement of the conjunction.

In the above explanation of this
passage I have assumed the reading
of vw. 531 given in the text. Of the
letters as divided, conjecturally of course,
in the MS., two interpretations have
been given, (1) ‘so that more missiles
are aimed at him (Parthenopaeus) than
at any other’, the besieged being pro-
voked by the insulting emblem, (2) ‘so
that missiles fall for the most part upon
him (the Theban)’, describing the sup-
posed position in which the Sphinx
holds her prey (Hermann). It is not
surprising that to this alternative Halm
preferred the escape of striking the
verse out. The second explanation is
scarcely intelligible in itself, and does
not satisfy ἕνα: the first makes an im-
probable distinction between φώτα and
ἀνδρὶ τῷδε: and both are quite irrele-
vant to the purpose of the descrip-
tion, and leave vv. 532—533, contrary

535

533. καταισχύνειν.

to the plain intention of their words,
without any connexion with the con-
text. It may be added that through-
out these descriptions there is no refer-
ence to actual fighting, naturally and
necessarily, since the poet, in order to
get time for this scene, is careful to note
at the opening of it, that the attack
cannot at present commence (v. 365).
For διαπέτομαι and its construction see
the Zex. s. uv. The true Attic form
of the aor. inf. is διαπτάσθαι (see Porson
on Eur. Med. 1); this however does not
affect the critical question, as the MSS.
give -πτέσθαι more often than not, nor
indeed can we be sure that the ‘Attic’
form would be that of Aeschylus.
534—536. The internal evidence
against these lines (pronounced spurious
by H. Wolf, Dindorf and others) is con-
clusive: (1) the interpolator explains
how Parthenopaeus came to be resident
at Argos (cf. Eur. Sp. 888), not ob-
serving that, as Aeschylus conceived the
story, he was of resident there, but had
come from Arcadia, as is shown by the
reference to his μακρὰ κέλευθος; (2) Φ.
536 is borrowed almost verbally from
v. 413, with the difference that the ex-
pressions, which are there pointed and
appropriate (see the note), are here point-
less; it is inconceivable that any one who
really understood v. 413, as Euripides
for instance understood it, should have
repeated it here; (3) the interpolation,
which has probably grown out of a mere
note (Παρθενοπαῖος ’Apxds), is accounted
for by the wish to give the name; but
the poet has given it already (v. 523)

ET.

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

εἰ γὰρ τύχοιεν ὧν φρονοῦσι πρὸς θεῶν

αὐτοῖς ἐκείνοις ἀνοσίοις κομπάσμασιν:
φ a , ; 3 ? /
ἦ Tay πανώλεις παγκάκως T ὁλοίατο.

ἔστιν δὲ καὶ τῷδ᾽, ὃν λέγεις τὸν ᾿Αρκάδα,

540

ἀνὴρ ἄκομπος, χεὶρ δ᾽ ὁρᾷ τὸ δράσιμον,
ἼΑκτωρ, ἀδελφὸς τοῦ πάρος λελεγμένον'
ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει γλῶσσαν ἐργμάτων ἄτερ

538. ἀνοσίαις.

in ἃ more subtle way, for the express
purpose of avoiding the inartistic recur-
rence to the license taken in v. 475. It is
noticeable that Priscian (see note on wv.
475) does not cite v, 534. Dramatically
there is of course no need to mention
the name of a well-known personage,
if he is sufficiently described.—The dis-
crepancy between Aeschylus and Euri-
pides respecting the story of Partheno-
paeus is not surprising. According to the
schol. on v. 534 Antimachus (author of
a Thebaid, late sth century) gave yet
a third version, making him to be not an
Arcadian at all, but an Argive. The
heroic legends, inconsistent in them-
selves, were handled by the poets with
freedom of detail. The treatment by
Euripides of the Phoentssae is a much
bolder instance of innovation.

537- Oh, tf they might receive of the
gods their own imaginations, even accora-
ing to their impious boasts! 1.6. that the
true gods may leave Parthenopaeus to
the aid of his trusted αἰχμή and no other,
and let him destroy himself, as did the
Sphinx, in defeat and despair. dv i.e.
ἐκείνων, &.—ws Weil, but the text, though
less simple, is more forcible.—avrofs κτλ.
is constructed both with τύχοιεν and with
φρονοῦσι: they are to ‘obtain by their
boasts’ that which they ‘imagine therein’.

541. χεὶρ δ᾽ ὁρᾷ Ais hand seeth that
which can be done. The explanation of this
curious phrase, much more noticeable in
Greek than it would be in our highly
coloured, metaphorical English, is perhaps
to be found in its antithesis to ἄκομπος.

From the language of the scene through-
out and immediately before (v. 537), it
is natural to suppose that κόμπος refers
to blazonry, and the comparison of οὐ
κόμπον in wv. 460 shows that ἄκομπος may
well signify not ‘without a blazon’, but
‘having a blazon not false or over-boast-
ful’, It may be inferred therefore that
the shield of Actor—which, it must be
remembered, is there, visible to the au-
dience—presents a symbol which Eteocles
interprets to mean ‘quick of hand’, such as
a hand and an eye, ora hand with an eye
upon it, perhaps with χεὶρ ὁρᾷ itself as
a legend. Cf. v. 610 and note. Itis
some confirmation of this that Euripides,
in his imitation (Phoen. 1115), describes
one of his blazons as ‘an Argus with
eyes all over him’.—Note also that this
line may reflect some light on w. 517,
for if that was rightly explained above,
we have here a fair retort, ‘If our
champion cannot pretend to an impos-
sible seeing spear, he has at least a seeing
hand for what is possible’.

542. Who will not suffer an idle
tongue unchecked to flow on into the gate
and feed mischief within, t.e. will not allow
the threats to be executed without a
struggle. The metaphor of a stream is
not very happy, and the word ῥέουσαν
has been suspected (@péovcay Burges,
φλύουσαν. Heimsoeth). But it is sup-
ported by the correspondence of meta-
phor in addalvew to make grow, and it is
necessary to the point: ἔργμα has two
meanings, (1) deed and (2) barrier, as of
a dyke against a stream, from εἴργω : cf.

re

“yf

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ. 63

ἔσω πυλῶν ῥέουσαν ἀλδαίνειν κακά,

οὐδ᾽ εἰσαμεῖψαι θηρὸς ἐχθίστον δάκους

545

εἰκὼ φέροντα πολεμίας ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος"
ἔξωθεν εἴσω τῷ φέροντι μέμψεται,

πυκνοῦ κροτησμοῦ τυγχάνουσ᾽ ὑπὸ πτόλιν.
θεῶν θελόντων δ᾽ ἄν ἀληθεύσαιμ᾽ ἐγώ.

Pers. 88 ὑποστὰς μεγάλῳ ῥεύματι φωτῶν
ἐχυροῖς ἕρκεσιν εἴργειν ἄμαχον κῦμα θα-
λάσσης, Eur. 770. 686 (of-a leak) ἄντλον
εἴργων ναός. Here both meanings are
equally appropriate and equally suggested
by the context, the first by the antithesis
to γλῶσσαν, the second by ἔσω πυλῶν
ῥέουσαν, and the point lies in the play
between the two. The bold use of γλώσ-
σαν, which embarrasses the conception, has
the merit of an effective contrast between
‘hand’ and ‘tongue’.

545. οὐδ᾽ ἐάσει εἰσαμεῖψαι τὸν τὴν εἰκὼ
φέροντα. --- θηρὸς εἰκὼ, 244 monstrous
tmage; the defining genitive has the force
of an epithet.

547. These words can be understood
in two ways: (1) referring ἔξωθεν to
ἀσπίδος, the Sphinx outside the shield will
complain to the bearer within of the bat-
tery to which she is exposed ; note the
emphasis laid in v. 527 on the fact that
the shield of Parthenopaeus is large
enough to cover his person, of which
fact Eteocles here makes sarcastic use;
(2) referring ἔξωθεν to πόλεως, as an
elliptic expression for ἔξω οὖσα μέμψεται
τῷ ἔξωθεν εἴσω φέροντι, outside shall she
complain to him who would carry her in:
ἔξωθεν (for ἔξω) is then used according
to the common ‘pregnant’ use of such
adverbs (cf. v. 40); εἴσω is displaced from
its natural position for the sake of an
emphatic contrast with ἔξωθεν. As the
sentence taken so is but a repetition of
the preceding in a different form, the
absence of a conjunction is according to
tule. Both interpretations are equally
natural, and the ambiguity must be de-
signed, like that of v. 543, as a jest.—
There seems to be no reason for sup-

‘posing that the text is defective here,

or that this speech was originally longer
than it now is. See the /#troduction,
and for the opposite view Dindorf, Weil
and others.

548. πυκνοῦ κροτησμοῦ alluding to
the βέλη of v. 531 (Paley), whichever way
that line be interpreted, and also, proba-
bly, to the form of the ‘Sphinx’, which,
in contrast to the decorations previously
described, is a work of the hammer; cf.
κροτεῖν, κρότησις, and see on v. 528. It
will receive many additional strokes, says
Eteocles ironically, before it getsin. ὑπὸ
πτόλιν. ὑπόπτολις Hartung; but the text
gives a slightly different and better mean-
ing ‘on the way up to the town’.

549. τόδ᾽ ἂν ἀληθεύσαιμ᾽ ἔπος Weil,
κατορθώσαιμ᾽ ἔπος Wecklein. Several
other suggestions are mentioned in Weck-
lein’s Appendix, all assuming that ἀλη-
θεύσαιμε is either the genuine word, or
truly represents the sense. The simplest,
dy (¢.¢. ἃ ἃν) ἀληθεύσαιμ᾽ ἐγώ, proposed
and rejected by Hermann, and adopted
by Paley, is objectionable for this among
other reasons, that the crasis of ἃ ἂν
appears to be found only in the sense
whatever. But acomparison of this speech
with the preceding, the points of which
it follows throughout, strongly suggests
that ἀληθεύσαιμ᾽ is simply an error of let-
ters for καπηλεύσαιμ᾽,---α»κα, if the gods
will, tes I will prove the cozener; cf. v.
530. The word κάπηλος and its deriva-
tives, properly signifying petty trade,
acquired the secondary meaning of cheat-
ing, deception (see the Lex.), cited in the
later scholia irrelevantly under v. 530
(ψεύσεσθαι, Sordcew), and would be used
in this sense with ironical humility by

64 | ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

ΧΟ.

ἱκνεῖται λόγος διὰ στηθέων,

στρ. γ΄. 550

τριχὸς δ᾽ ὀρθίας πλόκαμος ἵσταται .

μεγάλα μεγαληγόρων
κλύων ἀνοσίων ἀνδρῶν.

et θεοὶ

θεοί, τούσδ᾽ ὀλέσειαν ἐν γᾷ.

AD

Exrov λέγοιμ᾽ ἂν ἄνδρα σωφρονέστατον

555

ἀλκήν T ἄριστον μάντιν, ᾿Αμφιάρεω βίαν.

553.

Eteocles. Parthenopaeus comes, like ἃ
great merchant, to do a mighty trade in
war; the Thebans will shut him out, and
‘cheat’ him of his expected profit. And
note that this explains the emphatic ἐγώ,
in which the critics above quoted have
rightly found a difficulty. The facility of
the error in an uncommon word is well
illustrated by one of the later Mss. (Par.
E, see Hermann) which gives here ἀλευ-
θήσαιμ᾽. If by an accident καληπεύσαιμ᾽
were written, the reading of M would
arise with ease.

550. Adyos: the impious language of
Parthenopaeus? The metaphor here is
bold for Greek, but see on v. §53.—rpé-
μος or φόβος Jacobs.

551. πλόκαμοξ, properly hair which
can be plaited, used of the long hair of
women, as here, and of men’s hair when
grown long, as for a votive offering.—&p-
θιος Blomfield.

553. κλύων, another bold figure, the
hair itself being said to ‘hear’. κλύουσ᾽
(κλύονσα), the conjecture of the later Mss.,
is bad in grammar, and the text is pro-
bably correct. The peculiarities of wz.
550 —554 defend each other, as they show
evidence of a deliberate intention to strain
the language for a strong effect. On the
metre see the Appendix. (κλύειν, suggested
by Paley, seems not to be Greek, and is
not to be supported by such infinitives as
ἰδέσθαι in v. 4ο8.)--- εἰ θεοὶ θεοί (εἰσι), 2
the gods be gods, as we believe, let them
avenge themselves on the blasphemer.
Cf. Soph. O. C. 623 εἰ Ζεὺς ἔτι Ζεὺς χὠ
Διὸς Φοῖβος σαφής. The reading of M

εἴ,

is right, except in the accent of ef, which
is probably due to a confused notion that
it is used for εἴθε. No connecting con-
junction is required or indeed properly
admissible. —elOe γὰρ rece.

554. τούσδ᾽ ὀλέσειαν ἐν γᾷ let them
sink these blasphemers in earth, literally
‘cause them to disappear’, see on v. 408.
There is an impressive irony in the juxta-
position of this prayer and the following
description of the pious Ampbhiaraus,
upon whom the fate invoked was bestow-
ed by the gods as an exceptional favour.
See Eur. Sfp. 925, notes on vu. 574)
575, and the /ntroduction.

555. sagest of warriors and of prophets

| bravest in battle. μάντιν should be joined

with ἄριστον ἀλκήν, not taken. separately.
The combination of virtues in Amphiaraus
is described by the double antithesis of
ἀνήρ---μάντις, and ἀγαθὸς ἀλκήν---σώφρων :
each character being joined with the
virtue of the other. ἀνήρ has here a strong
sense answering to that of ἀνδρείας. Cf.
the precisely similar description of Amphi-
araus by Adrastus in Pindar O/. vI. 17
στρατιᾶς ὀφθαλμὸν ἐμᾶς, ἀμφότερον μάντιν τ᾽
ἀγαθὸν καὶ δουρὶ μάρνασθαι. There can
be little doubt that Pindar and Aeschylus
follow the same Epic tradition, of which
indeed Pindar appears to preserve a textual
fragment, ἀμφότερον μάντιν τ᾽ ἀγαθὸν καὶ
δουρὶ (μάχεσθαι). The point of these
descriptions turns, like many others, on
the form of the name, ᾿Αμφιάρεως, which
the bards connected with dpi-, ἀρείων,
etc., and took to mean ‘doubly excellent’.

é

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. 65

‘O ’ὦ δὲ \ ’ . 4
μολωίσιν δὲ πρὸς πύλαϊς τεταγμένος
κακοῖσι βάξει πολλὰ Τυδέως βίαν,

\ \
τὸν ἀνδροφόντην, τὸν πόλεως ταράκτορα,

μέγιστον "Apyes τῶν κακῶν διδάσκαλον,

560

᾿Ερινύος κλητῆρα, πρόσπολον φόνου,
κακῶν τ᾽ ᾿Αδράστῳ τῶνδε βουλευτήριον᾽
καὶ τὸν σὸν αὖθις πρὸς μόραν ἀδελφεόν,

563. πρὸσμόραν first accent erased.

558. βάζει, in reply to the taunts of
Tydeus himself (v. 369) whose appointed
post was near his own at the next gate
but one, Polynices (see v. 563 and the
Introduction) having the nearest. For
βάζειν see on v. 470.

559. τὸν ἀνδροφόντην. Tydeus of
Calydon had come to Argos to expiate
a murder by temporary exile, according
to the ancient practice; ἐπεὶ τοὺς Μέλα-
vos ἀπέκτεινεν παῖδας ᾿Αλκάθουν καὶ Av-
κανγέα (Schol.). Cf. Eur. Szppl. 147
OH. ἦλθον δὲ δὴ πῶς πατρίδος ἐκλιπόνθ᾽
ὅρους; ΑΔ. Τυδεὺς μὲν αἷμα ξυγγενὲς
φεύγων χθονός (Paley). The accusative
with the article, τὸν ἀνδροφόντην, an-
swers to the nominative with*the article
in direct speech, ὁ ἀνδροφόντης, as the
simple accusative to the form ὦ ἀνδρο-
φόντα. It signifies that the description
is as it were the proper title of the person
addressed. Cf. Eur. 2712. 589.

560—2. There is, as has often been
noticed, a certain irregularity in the
arrangement of these lines. Between
"Αργει τῶν κακῶν in v. 860 and Kkaxuwp
᾿Αδράστῳ τῶνδε in Ψ. 562 there is obvi-
ously an antithesis, that of the general to
the particular—strongest to persuade Ar-
gos to evil and adviser of Adrastus in
this evil now. UHence the τε in ᾧ. 562;
which couples these contrasted expressions
together, and would not be used, according
to the rules of the language, in a mere
catalogue. This antithesis would appear
more simply if the two lines were con-
tinuous. On the other hand, the inter-
ruption is natural to the style of an

V. A.

invective and improves the dramatic effect
of it. (Cf. the position of Πολυνείκους
βίαν in wv. 564.) Translated into direct
speech vv. 559—562 would run clearly
enough thus—ov, ὁ ἀνδροφόντης, ὃ τῆς
πόλεως ταράκτωρ, “Apye τε τῶν κακῶν εἶ
μέγιστος διδάσκαλος, ὦ κλητὴρ Ἐρινύος καὶ
Φόνου πρόσπολε, ᾿Αδράστῳ τε τῶνδε τῶν
κακῶν βουλευτήριος.---Ἰἴ any change were
required, the simplest would be to trans-
pose vv. 560, 561, but it would not be a
real improvement. For other suggestions
see Wecklein’s Appendix.

561. Summoner of the Avengeress and
minister of Death, t.e. a murderer bring-
ing a curse with him where he went.
There may also be a reference, as sup-
posed by a Schol., to the "Epwis of Oedi-
pus, which the act of Tydeus is summon-
ing to fulfilment. But this is not neces-
sary.

563. And thy brother also he up-
braids tn due measure, 1.6. according ta
his guilt, not with the fierce denunciations
addressed to Tydeus, whose malice was
unprovoked, but with terms importing
the reckless pursuit of ambition and re-
venge; see the sequel. πρὸς μόραν, t.¢.
πρὸς μέρος zt proportion; see the Lex.
5. Ὁ. μέρος. The verb is still βάζει; see on
v. 566.—Wecklein enumerates more than
twenty corrections of this verse, and it
may be presumptuous to suggest that it
is correct. In reality however the inter-
pretation of the line has scarcely been
attempted, the epic form ἀδελφεόν (in
iambic verse) and the unknown πρὸσ-
μόραν being taken as clear evidence of

5

66 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

ἐξυπτιάξων ὄμμα, ἸΠολυνείκους βίαν,
δίς τ᾽ ἐν τελευτῇ τοὔνομ᾽ ἐνδατούμενος ᾿ 565
[καλεῖ λέγει δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἔπος διὰ στόμα]

564. ὄνομα.

corruption. The possibility of the first
it is scarcely necessary to prove, as many
of the proposed corrections retain it; the
language of the tragedians abounds with
such irregularities; for example μέσσος,
the ‘epic’ form of μέσος, does not occur in
the iambics of Aeschylus and Euripides,
but in Sophocles several times, As to
μόρα, it is a well-known word, a dialectic
form of the poetic μοῖρα part, whose
synonym in prose is μέρος. In normal
Greek it is known only in its Spartan
sense of a military division; but that it
had once a wider use is proved, if
there could be any doubt of it, by the
derived verbal forms μεμορημένος etc. (see
Lex. 5.0. μείρομαι).. The concurrence of
these two peculiar forms ἀδελφεός and
μόρα, each in its proper meaning, ought
to satisfy us that both are genuine. A
scribe does not blunder into correct and
intelligible archaisms. What special as-
sociation or other condition recommend-
ed the words here, we cannot expect
to know; but many good reasons are
easily conceivable.—rov ἀξιοθάνατον" ἣ
Tov συμπράκτορα αὐτοῦ, Schol. The first is
a wild guess at the supposed word mpov-
μόραν (as if from μόρος death); the second
may well be a correct explanation (ἢ
συμπράκτορα αὐτοῦ, 1.4. τοῦ Tudédws, as
sharing his guilt), wrongly taken for an
interpretation by a succeeding commen-
tator.

564. ὄμμα (Schiitz), with eyes up-
turned: ἐξυπτιάζων, properly ‘inverting’,
is a strong expression, denoting here
pious horror, and characteristic also of
the ‘ prophet’.—The Scholl. explain ὄνομα
by a fictitious interpretation of ἐξυπτιά-
fwv as ἀναπτύσσων, érupodoywr, but the
metre alone (see on v. 580) would almost
suffice to justify the correction, which is

almost universally accepted. For the
confusion of the words see Eur. Or. 1082,
and Porson’s note there.

565. And twice at the close accenting
the divided name: t.¢. repeating the name
Πολν-νείκης, with stress upon its parts,

- so as to bring out the meaning ‘ conten-

tious’, The curious word ἐνδατεῖσθαι,
seems to have acquired the secondary
meaning fo emphasize or dwell upon, from
the natural method of emphasis by sepa-
rate pronunciation of words or syllables.
Hesychius’ ἐνδατούμενος" μεριζόμενος καὶ
olovel. κακῶς λέγων σφοδρῶς is correct,
except as to κακῶς, which is a hasty in-
ference from some particular case. The
word was neither good nor bad in sense;
contrast on the one hand this passage,
Eur. 1. 7.218, Soph. Zrach. 791 (where
note that the same thing is spoken of in
two aspects, so that the ‘division’ is

of a kind rather different from this); and

on the other hand Aesch. frag. 281 (Plato
Rep. 383 A) ὅταν φῇ ἡ Θέτις τὸν ᾿Απόλλω
ἐν τοῖς αὑτῆς γάμοις ᾷδοντα ἐνδατεῖσθαι τὰς
ἑὰς εὐπαιδίας, where from the quotation
following the sense is clearly ‘to dwell
upon with emphatic praise’. See also
Soph. O. 7. 205 ἐνδατεῖσθαι βέλη, where
this meaning is admissible; others (see
Jebb’s note ad /oc.) render it there ‘be
divided, scattered’, though there is no
positive authority for this.—év τελευτῇ :
at the end, not of the speech, the con-
clusion of which is cited below, but of
the series of κακά, opprobrious terms like
those of vv. 559—562.

566. I bracket this line for the follow-
ing reasons: (1) the effect of the stop
after the first foot (a rare thing in pol-
ished iambic verse where the sense is
continued from the previous line) is to
throw more emphasis upon the word so

ty

ETTTA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. 67

ἦ τοῖον ἔργον καὶ θεοῖσι προσφιλὲς

placed; see Ὁ. 660, v. 498, where θεούς is
opposed to ἄνδρας, and v. 365, where βρέμει
is in its nature emphatic: but καλεῖ, so
far from admitting emphasis, is useless,
the sentence being already provided with
a verb (see on wv. 563).
of διὰ στόμα to λέγει is as pointless as
‘speaks with his lips’ would be in Eng-
lish. (3) τοῦτ᾽ ἔπος λέγειν is not good
Aeschylean Greek for ‘to speak as
follows’; ἔπος, when used in this way,
is not a speech but a phrase or formula
of some kind, an exclamation or a ‘pro-
verb’, such as ὀά in Fervs. 126, ὦ δίκη
ὦ θρόνοι τ᾽ ’Epwiwy in Eum. 513, ξὺν
ἄλλοις πείσομαι τὸ μόρσιμον in v. 250,
ὦμοι ἴῃ P, V. 1012, νίκην καὶ κακὴν τιμᾷ
θεός in v. 704, the formula for offerings
to the dead in Cho. 92. (4) the context
forbids the use of words of introduction;
the ἄγγελος has already summarized the
speech and given the words immediately
preceding the citation (v. 565); after this
the citation of the conclusion can only
follow naturally if commenced without
preface. (5) the causes of the interpola-
tion are plain, the remoteness of the true
verb (see on v. 563), and the common use
of words of introduction; here the im-
pressive opening is much improved by
their absence. (6) on v. 567 the Scholl.
give the note καθ᾽ ὑπόκρισιν ‘acted’ or
‘spoken in character’ (see the Lex. s.
vu. ὑπόκρισις, ὑποκριτής), indicating that
here the ἄγγελος begins to speak as Am-
phiaraus; this note is useless as the
text stands, and must have been writ-
ten before the spurious verse was in-
serted.

567. There is a difficulty here which
deserves investigation. If τοῖον ἔργον is
the subject of the sentence, how is καὶ to
be taken? There is no authority for καί...
Te=both...and: and if to avoid this we
take καὶ not for dofk, but closely with
θεοῖσι or θεοῖσι προσφιλὲς for even, we
are driven to some artificial explanation,

(2) the addition ©

such as ‘acceptable even to the gods, #.e.
not only to your fellow-citizens’ (Paley).
Moreover it is not idiomatic Greek to
use the circunlocution τοῖον ἔργον, where
τοῦτο would mean as much, still less
to put it in the place of emphasis after 7.
Robortello’s conjecture ἢ θεῖον shows a
true sense of the grammar and rhythm
required. But we may satisfy the con-
ditions without change, by taking τοῖον
as a predicate. It is a familiar use of
τοιοῦτος (rotos) to stand for a repeated
adjective, particularly when a correspond-
ence of qualities is to be marked, ¢.g. ἀνὴρ
δίκαιος καὶ τοιαῦτα παθών a just man
justly treated. In this context τοῖον, if
predicate, stands for πολυνεικές, implying
that the deed answers to the name, and
this πολυνεικές, like Robortello’s θεῖον, is
ironical. It is taken (cf. πολύζηλος, πολύ-
δηρις etc.) in its passive sense ‘object
of rivalry’, so that πολυνεικὲς ἔργον is an
achievement ‘to be competed for’, 2.¢.
worthy of ambition. This explanation,
while solving the grammatical difficulty,
has two other advantages: (1) it connects
the citation with the emphasis laid on
Polynices’ name; and (2) it introduces a
reference to the intended meaning of it,
as distinguished from the sinister inter-
pretation. The name was of course not
intended to be inauspicious, but auspicious,
signifying ‘contended for’ or ‘coveted’,
by men as a friend and by women as
a lover. And there is reason for referring
to this primary meaning, since it is
essential to the point of the other. If
Πολυνείκης as a proper name had natu-
rally meant ‘contentious’, there would
have been no τύχη in the character, and
therefore nothing ominous in the name.
So the resemblance between Ἑλένα and
é\évaus (Ag. 692) is ominous only because
no one would have thought of it till
instructed by the event.—@ecotor...pebv-
στέροιᾳ is one phrase explaining τοῖον and
therefore joined to it by καὶ. The con-

5—2

68 ᾿ς ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

καλόν τ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι καὶ λέγειν μεθυστέροις,

πόλιν πατρῴαν καὶ θεοὺς τοὺς ἐγγενεῖς

πορθεῖν, στράτευμ᾽ ἐπακτὸν ἐμβεβληκότα. 570
μητρός τε πηγὴν τίς κατασβέσει δίκη,

πατρὶς δὲ γαῖα σῆς ὑπὸ σπουδῆς δορὶ

ἁλοῦσα πῶς σοι ξύμμαχος γενήσεται;

ἔγωγε μὲν δὴ τήνδε πιανῶ χθόνα,

μάντις κεκευθὼς πολεμίας ἐπὶ χθονός" 575

struction is προσφιλὲς θεοῖσι καλόν τε
μεθυστέροις ἀκοῦσαι καὶ λέγειν.

571. ‘As maternal blood cannot be
staunched by any atonement, so and still
more thy father-land can never’ etc.—re...
δὲς The later Mss., with more plausible
ground than usual, restore regularity by
changing δὲ to re. With re...re the two
cases are treated as precisely parallel.
But τε...δὲ is admissible, if a climax be
intended, the two propositions being not
merely coupled but compared or opposed :
cf. Xen. Hellen. 6. 5. 30 οἱ δὲ ᾿Αρκάδες
τούτων re οὐδὲν ἐποίουν, καταλιπόντες δὲ
τὰ ὅπλα εἰς ἁρπαγὴν ἐτράποντο, ‘not con-
tent with neglecting this duty they’ etc.
(Kiihner, Gramm. § 520, 3, where see
other examples): and there is no reason
why the speaker should not treat the
second proposition as the stronger of the
two. Note in both parts the free use
of the rhetorical question where English
would have.the simple negative. μητρὸς
πηγὴν : the genitive is that of equivalent
or definition, ¢he mother is a fountain
which no atonement will dry up. From
the style of this expression, and the

_manner of using it, it is plainly in sub-
stance an ancient ἔπος or maxim ; and it
dates, we may observe, from a time,
when the mother, not the father, was
specially or solely considered as the source
of kinship, and the blood, for which satis-
faction could not be made, was naturally
described as ‘mother’s blood’: πατρὸς,
not μητρὸς, would have better suited
the present parallel. (The existence in
Hellas, generally or locally, of the mater-

nal system of kinship, is a fact to be dis-
tinguished from the debated question as
to the existence of the ‘matriarchate’.
The legend of the Zumenides alone is
sufficient proof that paternal kinship had
at one time to fight for recognition, and
was driven to strange weapons of con-
troversy: cf. Zum. 660, and see M°Len-
nan Kinship in Ancient Greece.) The
comparison of blood shed by wounding to
a πηγή is the more natural, if, as the ety-
mology suggests, πηγή originally meant
not the water but the hole or ‘ piercing’
through which it rose. (See the editor’s
note on Eur. Afed. 410.)—To substitute
πληγὴν (Seidler, followed by many editors)
is to destroy the antique and picturesque
colour of the phrase without making it
any more correct; the equivalent in com-
mon language would be κατασβέσαι αἷμα;
κατασβέσαι πληγήν is scarcely sense, for
a ‘blow’ cannot be ‘ dried up’.

574. τήνδε πιανῶ χθόνα, 2.4. I shall
be buried. Believing that he is destined
to die (v. 604), he is assured that his
sacred character will save his body from
the outrage of exposure after death to the
beasts and the birds of prey (ἄτιμον
μόρον v. 576; for μόρος see on v. 408), a
fate from which the others were saved,
according to the story of Euripides’ Sz-
plices, only by the interference of Athens,
and which according to the older legend
they underwent. See the /mtroduction.

575. ἐπὶ χθονός, on the border of the
land. The significance of this phrase lies
in the preposition, which should not have
been changed, as in the later MSs., to ὑπὸ.

ἫΝ

~

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBA2. 69

μαχώμεθ᾽, οὐκ ἄτιμον ἔλπίζω μόρον.
τοιαῦθ᾽ ὁ μάντις ἀσπίδ᾽ εὐκήλων ἔχων
πάγχαλκον ηὔδα, σῆμα δ᾽ οὐκ ἐπῆν, κύκλῳ.

577"

Amphiaraus anticipates that the Thebans
will give him as a respected enemy the
sort of ambiguous sepulture outside their
bounds, which (according to Sophocles)
they proposed to give to Oedipus, whose
body they were unwilling either to admit
or, for certain oracular reasons, to part
with. See Soph. O. C. 399 IZ. ὡς σ᾽ ἄγχι
γῆς στήσωσι Καδμείας...ΟΙ. ἡ δ᾽ ὠφέλησις
τίς θύρασι κειμένου; The prophecy more-
over is thus made unconsciously exact;
for Aeschylus knew that, as a fact, Amphi-
araus was miraculously swallowed up by
the earth at a place ‘‘on the right of
the road as you go out of FPotniae into
Thebes” (ἐκ τῶν Ποτνιῶν ἰοῦσιν és Θήβας
ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς ὁδοῦ, Pausanias 9. 8. 3). It
was marked by anenclosure and pillars, and
Pausanias was told that animals both wild
and tame treated it with reverence. The
selection of this place on the Theban
border as the scene of the legend was
probably influenced by the same feeling
which is traceable here in the expectation
of Amphiaraus.

577. Thus spake the prophet, bearing
a shield of plain bronze, without device
upon tt, toa ring of careless listeners ; for
his willis not to be thought the bravest but
to be. ‘* Aeschylus counts it also a part of
wisdom to be cool as to what is thought
of us, not to be frightened this way and
that, nor to be eager for the general ap-
plause; see his description of Amphi-
araus,—ov γὰρ δοκεῖν ἄριστος and so on.”
(Αἰσχύλος δὲ καὶ τὸ πρὸς δόξαν ἔχειν ἀτύ-
φως, καὶ μὴ διασοβεῖσθαι, μηδὲ ἐπαίρεσθαι
τοῖς παρὰ τῶν πολλῶν ἐπαίνοις, ἐν τῷ φρο-
νεῖν τίθεται, περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αμφιαράου γράφων
“Sod γὰρ δοκεῖν... βουνλεύματα᾽", Plutarch
de audtendis poetis Ὁ. 32 E, cited by Her-
mann.) The behaviour which calls forth
this famous and splendid eulogy is, as

εὔκηλον.

Plutarch says, the honesty οὗ Amphiaraus
in urging unpopular truths, though his
audience is unsympathetic and his cour-
age exposes him to the reproach of cow-
ardice (see v. 369). There is nothing
improbable in the story of Plutarch (Ar3-
stides c. 3) that at the reciting of these
lines all eyes were turned upon the out-
spoken and disinterested opponent of the
popular policy advocated by Themisto-
cles; and at all events the language so
aptly refutes a malignant interpretation of
the name ’Apior-elins (ad speciem optimus,
bravest in seeming), that an allusion was
almost certainly intended.—In εὐκήλων
κύκλῳ εὔκηλος has its proper sense, u7-
moved, careless of his warnings, the Latin
securus: for κύκλος see Soph. 42. 749
κύκλος τυραννικός the circle of princes
debating, Eur. Andr. 1089 és κύκλους καὶ
ξυστάσεις ἐχώρουν they formed rings and
knots, and the Lex. s. uv. κύκλος. The
emphasis thrown upon κύκλῳ is inten-
tional; sxrrounded by opponents, he
would still speak his mind.—ojpa δ᾽
οὐκ ἐπῆν (αὐτῇ): a parenthesis. The
normal form of the sentence in prose
would be ἔχων ἀσπίδα πάγχαλκον, σῆμα δὲ
ἐπὶ τῇ ἀσπίδι οὐκ ἔχων : cf. Ag. 1286 ἐπεὶ
τὸ πρῶτον εἶδον Ἰλίου πόλιν πράξασαν ws
ἔπραξεν, of δ᾽ εἶχον πόλιν, ... ἰοῦσα τλήσομαι
τὸ κατθανεῖν (ΐ.6. ἐπεὶ εἶδον μὲν τὴν πόλιν
οὕτω πράξασαν, εἶδον δὲ ἐκείνους ἔχοντας
αὐτήν, τλήσομαι KTA.), Ψ. 800 πόλιν μὲν
εὖ πράσσουσαν, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπίσταται διέλαχον
({, ε. τοὺς δὲ ἐπιστάτας διαλαχόνταϑ) and
Kiihner Gr. Gram. ὃ 490.—The word
εὐκήλων is placed earlier in the sentence
than it would naturally stand, because, if
the sense were apparently complete before
the parenthesis, the words εὐκήλων κύκλῳ
would come as a surprise. It may be
ascertained by experiment that, if εὐκή-

70 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

οὐ γὰρ δοκεῖν ἄριστος, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι θέλει,

βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα διὰ φρενὸς καρπούμενος,

580

ἐξ ἧς τὰ κεδνὰ βλαστάνει βουλεύματα.
τούτῳ σοφούς τε κὠγαθοὺς ἀντηρέτας
πέμπειν ἐπαινῶ᾽ δεινὸς ὃς θεοὺς σέβει.

λων is to stand before the parenthesis, it
cannot be placed otherwise than where
it 15. A more remarkable derangement
of the regular order, and with less reason,
occurs in Aristoph. Zhesm. 811 οὐδ᾽ ἂν
κλέψασα γυνὴ ζεύγει κατὰ πεντήκοντα
τάλαντα ἐς πόλιν ἔλθοι τῶν δημοσίων, t.e.
κλέψασα τῶν δημοσίων κατὰ πεντήκοντα
τάλαντα ἐς πόλιν ἔλθοι ζεύγει. Here no
ambiguity results, as the genitive εὐκήλων
cannot be construed in any but the in-
tended way.—The correction εὐκήλων
for εὔκηλον, with the corresponding punc-
tuation, restores the metre with an irre-
ducible minimum of alteration, and is
strongly supported by the sense. It also
explains κύκλῳ, which in the Ms. and edi-
tions is joined to ἐπῆν in the supposed
sense of ord, t.e. shield. But this, as
others have seen (ἐπῆν σάκει Dindorf,
ἐπῆν πέριξ Lowinski), is bad Greek: κύ-
κλος is not a Synonym of ἀσπίς, nor is it
the Greek habit, as in English and other
modern languages, to use a synonym
as ἃ pronoun, nor with κύκλῳ should
the preposition be ἐπί, but ἐν, as in Eur.
El. 455 ἀσπίδος ἐν κύκλῳ τοιάδε σήμα-
τα τετύχθαι. Moreover with this punc-
tuation the words od γὰρ δοκεῖν κτλ.
must naturally be referred to the absence
of a device on the shield, which, though
a suitable circumstance, is of very slight
importance to the main purpose, as it is
rightly explained by Plutarch.—yp(dé¢e)
εὔκυκλον νέμων (m) is merely a bad conjec-
ture suggested by v. 629; γέμων has no
meaning.—Of the numerous ancient cita-
tions of wv. 579—581 several give δίκαιος
for ἄριστος, and it is possible, though the
references do not prove it, that the varia-
tion is as old as Plato (see Rep. 361 8,
362 A and Hermann’s note here). Pro-

bably, as Hermann supposes, the error
sprang from the reference to Anistides,
called ὁ δίκαιος, but the question scarcely
concerns the text of Aeschylus, for δίκαιος
is irrelevant. It was, as Paley says, not
ἀδικία but ayuxla (cowardice) of which
Amphiaraus was accused.

580. Adoxa: ὥὦλκα Krebs: which is
probably correct, at least as to the in-
tended pronunciation. The form is ‘epic’,
1.6. belongs to the same mixed poetic
vocabulary as ἀδελφεός. βαθεῖαν κτλ.
reaping in his thoughts the fruit of the
deep furrow, from which good counsel
grows, literally ‘by means of his mind’;
or διὰ φρενὸς may be taken, as by Paley,
with βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα, ‘a furrow deep-
ploughed in his mind’; but the first is
better in rhythm, and note τὰ in w.
581, which indicates that κεδνὰ βουλεύ-
para, and therefore βαθεῖαν ddoxa, is
to be understood generally. Without
metaphor, ‘a sound judgment is the re-
ward of independence; he who dares to
see the truth, will see it’.

582. dvrnpéras, an opponent, not
‘opponents’; the plural merely guards
the expression from particular reference.

584. Fie on the chance that governs the
unions of mankind, and joins the just man
with the wicked! literally ‘which joins
mankind together, the just man with the
wicked’. The remark is general, as βροτοὺς
and the sequel show. The words δίκαιον
.. duogeBeorépos stand, to use the phrase
of the grammars, ‘in apposition to’ the
‘cognate accusative’ ξυνάλλαξιν implied
in ξυναλλάσσοντος βροτούς, and describe
the manner of the ξυνάλλαξις. Insucha
case as this the construction is familiar to
English, e.g. ‘the ships were fastened
together, prow to prow’.—The use of the

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBAS. 71

KT.

φεῦ τοῦ ξυναλλάσσοντος ὄρνιθος βροτούς,
δίκαιον ἄνδρα τοῖσι δυσσεβεστέροις.

585

ἐν παντὶ mpaye δ᾽ ἔσθ᾽ ὁμιλίας κακῆς
κάκιον οὐδέν, καρπὸς οὐ κομιστέος"
ἄτης ἄρουρα θάνατον éxxapriteras.
ἢ γὰρ ξυνεισβὰς πλοῖον εὐσεβὴς ἀνὴρ

ναύτῃσι θερμοῖς καὶ πανουργίᾳ τινὶ

590

ὄλωλεν ἀνδρῶν σὺν θεοπτύστῳ γένει,
a \ ’ > ( , a
ἢ ξὺν πολίταις ἀνδράσιν δίκαιος ὧν
3 7 a 3 ,
ἐχθροξένοις τε καὶ θεῶν ἀμνήμοσιν,
ταὐτοῦ κυρήσας ἐκδίκως ὠγρεύματος,

comparative in δυσσεβεστέροις is Greek
but not English ; it serves merely to con-
trast the δυσσεβεῖς with the δίκαιος, and
means not ‘more wicked than he’ but
‘not righteous as he’. Cf. Plat. Phzled.
55D τὰ μὲν ws καθαρώτατα voulvew, τὰ δ᾽
ὡς αἀκαθαρτότερα absolutely pure...not so
pure, Rep. 564 Βἀνδρειότατον.. «ἀνανδρότερον
and see Kiihner Gr. Gram. § 349 b, note
2. In Latin the use is commoner, see
e.g. Martial 12. 34. 7 vincet candida turba
nigriorem,—Themistaken changes βροτοῖς
(m’) and δυσσεβεστάτοις (recc.) only per-
plex the sense and the construction.

587. καρπὸς ov κομιστέος, the fruit is
not worth the gathering, 1.6. it produces
only mischief. The Schol. on Ψ. 588 cites
a proverb, λύμης χωρίον ἡ τῶν πονηρῶν
φιλία,

588 is perhaps an illustrative quota-
tion from some other passage, inserted in
the text by mistake (Valckenaer). ἐκκαρ-
πίζεται is passive, and the accusative
θάνατον is ‘in apposition to’ the implied
καρπόν; death ts the harvest grown from
the field of sin, literally ‘the field...has
death grown from it as a harvest’.

589. ἢ γὰρ... ἤἢ: sometimes... sometimes.

590. ναύτῃσι, the Ionic form: so the
MS. ναύταισι Blomfield. But in a passage
of this kind we have no right to assume
that the forms must all be normal. If
the metaphor is borrowed—and nothing
is more likely—from a familiar place in
an older poet, a writer of γνῶμαι for

example like Theognis, who used the
very words ναύτῃσι θερμοῖς, this would
be sufficient reason for preserving the
archaism. It may of course be an error,
but it may equally well be a touch of
literary effect.—ravoupyla τινὶ: a rascal
sort, The use of the abstract ravoupyla
for πανοῦργοι is modelled on the common
collectives πρεσβεία (πρέσβει:), ὑπηρεσία
(ὑπηρέται), φνγή (φυγάδε5), etc.; cf. Kiih-
ner Gr. Gram. § 346. 3: τινὶ (cf. the
Latin use of guédam) serves to accommo-
date to the ear an exceptional expression ;
literally ‘a sort of rascality ’. The abstract
form is specially appropriate, because it
is in their collective or average character
as a γένος (see vw. 591) that the wicked
companions are fatal. The individual is
lost in the class.

591. ἀνδρῶν, antithetic to ὠνὴρ in z.
589; so also ἀνδράσιν in v. 592.

594: being strangely found with them
when they are taken, falls undistinguished
by the trident-stroke of fate. ἐκδίκως,
irregularly, unnaturally, i.e. out of the
common course of his associations; for
δίκη in the sense of ‘nature, the common
course of things’, see Eur. 2224. 410 ἄνω
ποταμῶν ἱερῶν χωροῦσι παγαί, καὶ δίκα καὶ
πάντα πάλιν στρέφεται, and the editor’s
note there: also Hermann on ἐνδίκως
cited below. ἐνδίκως is the reading of
some later Mss., and was probably intend-
ed by the correctors to mean justly; it is,
however, as Hermann says, admissible in

72 AIZXYAOY

πληγεὶς θεοῦ μάστιγι παγκοίνῳ ᾿δάμη. 595
ef 3 e , ΕΝ 3

οὕτως δ᾽ ὁ μάντις, νἱὸν Οἰκλέους λέγω,

σώφρων δίκαιος ἀγαθὸς εὐσεβὴς ἀνήρ,

μέγας προφήτης, ἀνοσίοισι συμμιεγείς,

θρασυστόμοισιν ἀνδράσιν βίᾳ φρενῶν.

τείνουσι πομπὴν τὴν μακρὰν πάλιν μολεῖν, όοο

599.

the sense of naturally, in due course (see
Eur. 24. A. 366 ἐξεχώρησαν κακῶς, τὰ
μὲν ὑπὸ γνώμης πολιτών ἀσυνέτου, τὰ δ᾽
ἐνδίκως, ἀδύνατοι γεγῶτες αὐτοὶ διαφυλά-
ξασθαι πόλιν, and cf. the Latin ut aeguom
est, as might be expected, Plaut. Rud. 2. 2.
7). That the righteous is found by fate
among the guilty may be called either
‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’; it is the ‘natural’
result of his ‘unnatural’ association with
them. ustly and unjustly are not to the
point, the passage relating, as Hermann
says, not to injustice (or justice), but to
the ‘tristis necessitas, quae insontem
addit scelestis’.—é@x8lxocs Prien, depend-
ing on ταὐτοῦ.

505. μάστιξ, properly a ‘fork’ or ‘two-
headed prong’; cf. the διπλῇ μάστιξ
δίλογχος ἄτη of Ag. 647. Here it is an
instrument like the trident, used for kill-
ing fish when captured in a net. The
word is probably connected remotely with
μάσταξ (a pair of jaws), μαστιχάομαι,
etc. It must, however, have been re-
stricted in common use from early times
to the ‘two-pointed goad’, in which
sense it occurs in Soph. frag. 964 ὅταν δὲ
δαίμων ἀνδρὸς εὐτυχοῦς τὸ πρὶν μάστιγ᾽
ἐρείσῃ τοῦ βίου παλίντροπον (where the
epithet παλίντροπος, reverted so as to pre-
sent the point, shows that a goad, not a
whip, is meant; the translation wzp has
led to difficulties and corrections). So
also in Soph. Az. 1254, where an ox is
driven with a μάστιξ, and in P. V. 708
οἰστρόπληξ μάστιγι θείᾳ, where the com-
parison to the gad-fly’s sting points to the
meaning goad. Whip, though eventually
established as the sole meaning, was pro-

ἀνδράσι.

bably in the first instance a false use by
analogy from goad.—éddpy: ‘gnomic’
aorist of that which commonly happens.

596. οὕτως δὲ: and so shall it be with
etc. The verb (δαμήσεται or the like) is
to be supplied from the previous sentences,
See on v. 6o1.

th. νἱὸν Οἰκλέους λέγω. The pur-
pose of this parenthesis is to mark at once
that ὁ μάντις is not to be taken in the
general sense of ‘the prophet’, z.¢. a
prophet as such, which the previous con-
text would rather suggest. See v. 259
and note.

598. ἀνοσίοισι, a substantive, having
θρασυστόμοισιν ἀνδράσιν in apposition to it.

599- θρασυστόμοις βίᾳ φρενῶν : Jold |

with their lips in despite of sense, 1.
wilfully suppressing the suggestions of
their better judgments. It is possible
also to take the words with συμμιγείς,
‘joined with them despite his better
judgment’, but the position of βίᾳ φρενῶν
is strongly against this, nor would συμμι-
yels be the right word to express it.
Amphiaraus is ‘confused with’ the rest,
so that fate will not distinguish him.

600. TZhey are travelling that far
journey whence ’tis a long way back, a sig-
nificant euphemism for a journey ‘to the
country from whose bourn no traveller re-
turns’, in plain language ‘they are on their
road to destruction’, The infinitive πάλιν
μολεῖν depends, as an explanation, upon
μακρὰν, ‘long to return from’. τείνουσι,
literally make long.—The later Mss.
have spoilt this expressive phrase and
caused much perplexity, by adopting the
bad correction πόλιν, on the assumption

i

“

nial

ETTTA EIT! OHBA2. 73

Διός θ᾽ ἑλόντος συγκαθελκυσθήσεται.

δοκῶ μὲν οὖν σφε μηδὲ προσβαλεῖν πύλαις ---
οὐχ ὡς ἄθυμος, οὐδὲ λήματος κάκῃ,

ἀλλ᾽ οἷδεν ὥς σφε χρὴ τελευτῆσαι μάχῃ,

εἰ καρπὸς ἔσται θεσφάτοισι Λοξίου"

605

φιλεῖ δὲ συγᾶν ἢ λέγειν τὰ Kaipta,—
ὅμως δ᾽ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ φῶτα, Λασθένους βίαν,

όοι. θέλοντος.

that Aeschylus might use τὴν μακρὰν
πόλιν for Hades. The confused note of
the Schol. ἐπὶ τὴν els Αἰδην ἀποικίαν
ἑλκυσθήσεται ---- μολεῖν τὴν ἐναντίαν τῇ
(τὴν) els"Apyos, is perhaps a combination
of two; but the last part of it clearly
assumes the reading πάλιν, and is approxi-
mately right.

Gor. Διός θ᾽ ἑλόντος (αὐτούς): and
when Zeus takes them, he will be dragged
down also. The verbs ἑλεῖν, ἑλκυσθῆναι
take up again the metaphor of the
dypeupa: see v. 594.—The letters here
(OeXovros) are ambiguous, but the tenor of
the passage shows that the division and
accentuation adopted in the Ms. is wrong.
According to the orthodox Greek theo-
logy, as here set forth, God does of either
‘will’, or properly speaking ‘permit’, that
the righteous should perish with the
wicked ; but by the perverse entangle-
ments of chance the one is sometimes
involved in the punishment of the other.
It must be remembered that neither the
popular nor the critical philosophy of the
Greeks supposed the divine power to be
omnipotent or omniscient.—In συγκαθελ-
κυσθήσεται there is an unconscious pro-
phecy of the manner of Amphiaraus’ end
(Paley) ; but Eteocles is entirely mistaken
in supposing that ‘Zeus’ will be misled
in his award : see v. 616 and the /#troduc-
tion.—vv. '96—6o01 are commonly taken,
with the reading θέλοντος, as one sen-
tence, τείνουσι being then the dative par-
ticiple. But the long suspension of the
syntax has an awkward effect. _

602. μηδὲ not even, not at all.

604. ὦ σφε.:

603. ὡς ἄθυμος 1.4. ἐστί; mot because
he ts without spirit.—d@vpnov Turnebus.

604. but he knows how he (or perhaps
rather they) must end in the fight, i.e.
what the result of battle is destined to be.
Not ‘that he will die’, though this is of
course suggested by the words. A prose
writer would have said ὅπως σφισὶ χρὴ
τελευτῆσαι THY μάχην.

606 is taken in two ways: (1) ‘ but he
(Amphiaraus) is wont to be silent or to
speak what is in season’, z.¢. not to speak,
when what is suitable cannot be use-
fully said, or (2) ‘and he (Apollo) is
wont to say nothing or speak to the
mark’, #.¢, always speaks truly; see
the Zex. s. v. καιρός. The first is better,
both because, according to the second
interpretation, there is no point in the
alternative σιγᾶν; and also because
there is no evidence for the second sense
of xalpios, while Cho. 580 σιγᾶν θ᾽ ὅπον
δεῖ καὶ λέγειν τὰ καίρια is strong evidence
for the usual sense in this very con-
nexion. The point of the verse is to
explain why Amphiaraus, with foreknow-
ledge of the doom destined for the Argive
army, is not now more explicit. He will
not spend more warnings on those who
will not listen. (Paley illustrates καίριος
true by wv. 1 as well as Cho. 580, but
Cho. 580 is against it, and on vw. 1 see
note there. )

607. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, neuter, for ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ
τούτῳ over and above, lit. ‘above the thing
itself’, 2.6. as a security in addition to the
improbability of an attack; not ‘ against
him’; if the pronoun were expressed at all,

74

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

éyOpokevoy πυλωρὸν ἀντιτάξομεν,
γέροντα τὸν νοῦν, σάρκα δ᾽ ἡβῶσαν φύσει,

ποδῶκες ὄμμα, χεῖρα δ᾽ οὐ βραδύνεται

610

map ἀσπίδος γυμνωθὲν ἁρπάσαι δόρυ.
θεοῦ δὲ δῶρόν ἐστιν εὐτυχεῖν βροτούς.

ΧΟ.

κλύοντες θεοὶ δικαίας λιτὰς

4 ’
avT. Ὕ.

ἡμετέρας τέλεῖθ᾽, ὡς πόλις εὐτυχῇ,

δορίπονα κάκ᾽ ἐκτρέπον-

615

A 9 ( . ’ >
Tes yas émiporous’ πύργων δ᾽ ἔκτοθεν
βαλὼν Ζεύς σφε κάνοι κεραυνῷ.

which according to Aeschylus’ manner of
writing it should not be, the simple dative
αὐτῷ not ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ would be the correct
construction with ἀντιτάξομεν. Cf. ν. 431.

609. The use of σάρξ to describe the
man himself, muscle for ‘a muscular
frame’, is bold and irregular, though
conceivable-—A much simpler reading
is φύει Wellauer: οὐδ in mind but keep-
ing still the muscle of vigorous man-
hood: the symmetrical construction would
require φύοντα : for the variation see on
v. 578 and cf. the nextline. φύει ‘grows’
has its full sense, implying that waste has
not begun to gain upon vitality.

610, ποδῶκες ὄμμα a swift-foot eye,
ζ.6. a quick eye. A comparison with the
similar passage at v. 541 (see note) gives
ground for supposing that here also the
striking peculiarity of phrase is to be
explained by reference to the warrior’s
device; which combines the foot and the
eye, as that of Actor the hand and the
eye, in a hieroglyphic to which the ex-
pression of Eteocles furnishes the in-
terpretation.

tb. neither ἐς his hand slow to sur-
prise the moment when the spear ts un-
covered by the shield. The words δόρυ
and ἀσπίς are used, as in many military
phrases (see the Zex. s. vv.), for the two
hands or sides, here of the covered left
and the uncovered right of the warrior
himself; the object of ἁρπάσαι is not δόρυ
but γυμνωθὲν παρ᾽ ἀσπίδος δόρν, ‘the un-
covering of the spear by the shield’, 2.6.

the moment when the enemy, by his
movement, leaves his right clear of the
covering shield. For this use of the sub-
stantive and participle, very common in
Latin but rare in Greek, cf. Pind. Pyth.
XI. 22 πότερόν νιν dp’ ᾿Ιφιγένεια opax-
θεῖσα τῆλε πάτρας ἔκνισεν ; ‘the sacrificing
of Iphigenia’, and other examples in Gil-
dersleeve’s Pindar, Introd. p. cxiii. For
ἁρπάσαι, ‘to snatch, seize an opportunity’,
cf. ἁρπάσαι πεῖραν Soph. 41. 2. If δόρυ
be taken literally and separated from
γυμνωθὲν, it is hard to give ἁρπάσαι δόρυ
any reasonable sense.

615. There is some error here. The
metre is perfectly defensible (see “42-
pendix), but not so the construction
ἐκτρέπειν κακὰ ἐπιμόλους. Moreover the
elision of the pyrrhic (~~) κακά, very rare
in Aeschylus, is here peculiarly ugly be-
fore éx. The els superscribed by m’ is
probably but an explanation. Perhaps
karexrpémovres yas ἐπιμόλους : in that case
δορίπονα would be construed with εὐτυχῇ,
‘may prosper in the struggle of war’.
See further Wecklein’s Appendix.

616. ἔκτοθεν : from his place without
the wail: apparently this gate had near
it a figure of Zeus (Ὁ μολώϊζοΞ), cf. v. 488.
This prayer is fulfilled to the letter. Am-
phiaraus zs put out of the land and is
slain (in a manner) by the thunderbolt
of Zeus, see on vw 575 and /ntroduction.
And yet he is rewarded and not punished
with the guilty.

ha

ee me me,
had Ἷ

ETTTA ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ. 75

ΑΓ.

τὸν ἕβδομον δὴ τόνδ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑβδόμαις πύλαις

λέξω, τὸν αὐτοῦ σοῦ κασίγνητον, πόλει

οἷός γ᾽ ἀρᾶται καὶ κατεύχεται τύχας"

620

πύργοις ἐπεμβὰς κἀπικηρυχθεὶς χθονί,

620.

618. τὸν EBSonov...rédvSe the seventh
and last. τόνδε indicates the close of
the series, the unit at the ‘hither’ end of
it, so to speak. So in the list of the
successive occupants of the oracle of
Delphi (Zum. 1. foll.), Apollo is de-
scribed (v. 18) as τέταρτον τόνδε μάντιν
‘fourth and last’. δὴ (ow) conveys the
same meaning: ‘ Vow am I arrived in
my story to the seventh champion for the
Seventh gate’.—On the name Ἕβδομαι,
and on the crisis of the plot at this point,
see the /#troduction. Note the peculiar
even rhythm of v. 618 (see on v. 996)
and the unusual division at λέξω (see on
v. 566).

‘620. οἷός γ᾽ ἀρᾶται. This, the ori-
ginal reading of the Ms. (for the accentua-
tion shows that the erased letters were
os), is much better than the οἵας γ᾽ or οἵας
afterwards substituted and now appearing
in many texts. The construction is λέξω
αὐτὸν πόλει τοιοῦτόν ye οἷος ἀρᾶται καὶ
κατεύχεται τύχας αὐτῇ, literally ‘as for
the seventh champion, I shall describe
him just (γε) such an one to the town as
he is in his curses and imprecations upon
her’, or in English form, ‘for the seventh
champion, what a foe our city has in him,
will enough appear by his curses upon
her’. The dative πόλει is the pivot of
the sentence, being related, in the differ-
ent ways which the flexible use of the
case permits, to λέξω, to τοιοῦτον οἷος,
and to dparac...ruxas.

621. (he prays) that he, her proscript
outlaw, may set foot upon her walls and
shout his cheer of triumph over her fall,
then meet with thee and, if he may slay
thee, die together, or, tf thou livest, punish
thee, his dethroner and banisher, with
extle so and likewise as he suffers now.

of « γ᾽ ἀρᾶται---οἵας m’.

This sentence, the prayer of Polynices, is
in dependence on dpa@rat...rvxas, the in-
finitives ξυμφέρεσθαι, θανεῖν, τίσασθαι
representing the original optatives ξυμφε-
polunv, θάνοιμι, τισαίμην. This use of the
infinitive is important to remember; it
has been missed, for example, in the well-
known passage of the Prometheus (690),
the response of the oracle to Inachus
respecting Io, σαφῶς ἐπισκήπτουσα... ἔξω
δόμων... ὠθεῖν ἐμέ" κεὶ μὴ θέλοι, πυρωπὸν
ἐκ Διὸς μολεῖν κεραυνόν, ὃς πᾶν ἐξαιστώσει
γένος. This μολεῖν is often cited (see
above on wv. 415) as an aorist without ἄν
used for a future, as if the original form
of the oracle would be εἰ μὴ θέλοις, μόλοι
ἄν. But such a form would be weak and
unsuitable: μολεῖν correctly represents
not μόλοι ἂν but μόλοι, an imprecation;
if éfacorwoe, the reading of the Ms., were
to be changed at all, it should be changed
not for ἐξαιστώσοι, as in many texts, but
for ἐξαιστώσαι, the optative of the aorist.
It is however right as it stands, the ori-
ginal form being εἰ μὴ θέλεις, μόλοι κεραυ-
vos, ὃς ἐξαιστώσει, ‘if thou dost refuse,
I call upon thee the thunderbolt, which
must destroy etc.’; the original tense of
the dependent clause is retained, as often,
in the oblique form.

κἀπικηρυχθὲὶς : this qualifies, as acon-
cessive or antithetic clause, the participle
ἐπεμβὰς, to which ἐπεξιακχάσας serves as
principal verb: καὶ is not a copula, but
equivalent to καίπερ ‘setting foot upon her
walls in spite of her proscription’. To get
this sense, Weil reads κἀποκηρυχθεὶς χθο-
vés, but it does not appear that the change
is required: ἐπικηρύττειν τινὶ (θάνατον,
χρήματα) is ‘to proscribe a person under
penalty of death’, or ‘ to set a price upon
his head’. Thecorresponding passive ὁ

76

AIZXYAOY

ι 4 A 9 ,
ἁλώσιμον tatav ἐπεξιακχάσας,

σοὶ ξυμφέρεσθαι καὶ κτανὼν θανεῖν πέλας,
ἢ ζῶντ᾽ ἀτιμαστῆρα τὼς ἀνδρηλάτην

A \ > \ 4 , 7
φυγῇ τὸν αὐτὸν τόνδε τίσασθαι τρόπον.

625

τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀυτεῖ καὶ θεοὺς γενεθλίους
καλεῖ πατρῴας γῆς ἐποπτῆρας λιτῶν
τῶν ὧν γενέσθαι πάγχυ ἸΠολυνείκους Big.

628. βία---βίαι m.

éxixnpuxOeds for the proscribed person is
cited only from Dion Cassius (see Zex. s.v.)
and would doubtless not have been used
by a writer of the classic prose language.
But in this as in other respects the inartis-
tic carelessness of decadent prose only re-
produces the artistic irregularity of ancient
poetry; cf. Soph. £7. 114 τοὺς εὐνὰς ὑπο-
κλεπτομένους ‘husbands whose rights are
stolen’, Eur. Wed. 838 αἰεὶ ἐπιβαλλομέναν
χαίταισιν podlwy πλόκον ἀνθέων ‘ with ever
a wreath of roses fung upon her hair’, and
even a passive of ἐρείπω (fo be fallen upon)
in Hes. 7heog. 704, of Heaven coming
down to the embrace of Earth, τῆς μὲν
ἐρειπομένης τοῦ δ᾽ ὕψοθεν ἐξεριπόντος. The
interpretation derived from the later
scholia ‘being proclaimed king’ cannot
be justified by the use of the word, and, if
it could, would not be suitable to the
passage. χθονί is constructed as a dative
of relation (ethic) with the whole phrase
πύργοις... ἐπικηρυχθεὶς: a prose writer would
have used the possessive (πύργοις χθονός)
but see parallels in wv. 167, 264, 907.

624. ἀτιμαστήρα adjective to ἀνδρη-
λάτην, in the full sense, ‘ depriving him
of his τιμαί, or prerogative’, Blomfield
removes the superfluity of expression, but
also some of the emphasis, by reading
ἀνδρηλατῶν.

626. θεοὺς yevebAlous ... éromripas :
more particularly the river-gods of the
« Dircaean stream’, close by whose waters
he stood (vv. 259 note, 365). The river-
gods, as sources of growth, were specially
the patrons of the youth of the country,
and received offerings (θρεπτήρια) as such.

Cf. the adjuration of Polynices to Oedipus
in Sophocles (0, C. 1335) πρός νύν σε κρη-
γῶν καὶ θεῶν ὁμογνίων, and Jebb’s note
there.

16. And calls the birth-gods of his
Jather-land to be witnesses perforce to the
prayers of him, in very truth a Polynices.
γενέσθαι Bla to become witnesses perforce,
because, as actually present (see the pre-
vious note), they could not but hear. The
insult thus forced upon them announces
his desperate intention. The Ms. has βία,
but that this is an error and that the
first corrector rightly replaced the dative
is proved by the scholium βοηθοὺς γενέσ-
θαι τοὺς θεοὺς ἐπεύχεται παντελῶς τῇ Bla
αὐτοῦ ὁ Πολυνείκης, though the explana-
tion is not quite exact.—rév ὧν πάγχν
TToAvyelxovs. These (τῶν ἐμῶν πάγχυ
Πολυνείκους) are the words of Polynices
himself. There is a strong emphasis
on τῶν ὧν, without which indeed the
possessive would be superfluous and
would not have been used. The prayers
are his prayers, and he is Polynices. He
accepts the reproach of Amphiaraus (z.
564) and converts it into a declaration of
his irreconcilable enmity. With βία the
meaning would be the same; but Poly-
nices could scarcely describe himself as
he would thus appear to do, by the peri-
phrasis II. Bla. For πάγχυ altogether cf.
πανδίκως Ὁ. 657 and κάρτα in v. 645 etc.
The name Πολυνείκης, used significantly,
is naturally constructed as an adjective.—
The modern editions accept βία, taking
II. Bia to be merely an appellative used by
the ἄγγελος, and joining πάγχυ (in that

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBA2. 77

54 A 4 ,
ἔχει δὲ καινοπηγὲς εὔκυκλον σάκος

διπλοῦν τε σῆμα προσμεμηχανημένον.

630

χρυσήλατον yap ἄνδρα τευχηστὴν ἰδεῖν
ἄγει γυνή τις σωφρόνως ἡγουμένη.

Δίκη δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ εἶναι φησίν, ὡς τὰ γράμματα
λέξει, κατάξω δ᾽ ἄνδρα τόνδε καὶ πόλιν

ἕξει πατρῴων δωμάτων τ᾽ ἐπιστροφάς.

case not an appropriate word) with γε-
vécOa. But the attempts made (see
Wecklein) to get rid of v. 628, which in
fact has thus no use or meaning at all,
show that this view has not proved satis-
factory.

629. εὔκυκλον σάκος. Note that εὖ-
κυκλον round is a mere fixed (epic) epithet
of a shield as such, while xawornyés is
joined with ἔχει as part of the predicate.
It is because εὔκυκλον has no separate
force, but merges in the substantive, that
a second adjective is used without a
copula. A schol. is therefore wrong in
wishing to substitute for εὔκυκλον an epi-
thet having more point—yp(d¢e) εὔθετον,
ἵν᾽ ἡ εὐβάστακτον (light to carry). θεῖναι
γὰρ τὸ ἀναλαβεῖν λέγουσιν ᾿Αττικοί. καὶ
“ὅπλα ἔθεντο᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνέλαβον. It will be
noticed that the commentator did not fd
εὔθετον in his MS., but suggests it himself.
The illustrations which he cites for it are
of course mistaken: θεῖναι is not syno-
nymous with ἀναλαβεῖν, nor ἔθεντο with
ἀνέλαβον, nor are θεῖναι and θέσθαι used
indifferently. In itself εὔθετον σάκος a
light shield isa natural expression enough,
though scarcely to the purpose here.—
καινοπηγὲς. There is a difficulty in this
word, noticed by one of the later copy-
ists (Par. L, see Hermann), who writes
καινοπληγὲς (for newly-hammered). The
shield of Polynices must surely be,
like all the rest, of metal and forged ;
but on the other hand, no good Greek
writer, it is perhaps safe to say, could use
κηγνύναι (nailing, carpentry) for the pro-
cess of forging. ‘Fwo possible expla-
nations occur: (1) mew-hardened, 1.e.

635

scarcely cool from the fire, from wern-
γέναι in the sense of fo become solid. As
it seems to be suggested that the shield
had been made, or at least redecorated
for the occasion, there is no external im-
probability in this ; but it would be appro-
priate rather to casting than to forging;
(2) From προσμεμηχανημένον in v. 630
compared with vw. 5218 προσμεμηχανημένην
γόμφοις it seems that the figures on this
shield also are moveable, @xxpovora, and
attached by γόμφοι (see note there), As
πηγνύναι in ordinary use means ‘to
make with γόμφοι (nails)’, καινοπηγές
may well mean, ‘with a new apparatus
of γόμφοι᾽, so that new-drilled would be
an approximate rendering. In this case

' what is new in the shield is the symbolic

decoration.

631. τευχηστὴν ἰδεῖν: i” armed guise.
ἰδεῖν explanatory infinitive.

632. γννή τις a woman figure—co-
φρόνως ἡγουμένη calmly going before, i.e.
with the dignified bearing of one who is
sure of her cause. σωφρόνως ἠσκημένη
(Butler) i# decent garb is surely a mis-
taken change.

633. dpa implies that the narrator
does not accept her declaration.

634. λέξει : emphasized by the rhythm
and pause (see on v. 566)—as the inscrip-
tions will declare, if they are to be be-
lieved. See the previous note. — The

later copies substitute λέγει, not for the

better. The future, ‘will tell you, when
you read them’, is quite intelligible and,
after φησίν, more agreeable to the ear.—
κατάξω : the remainder of the inscription
is quoted in the very words.

98 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐκείνων ἐστὶ τἀξευρήματα᾽

σὺ δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἤδη γνῶθι---τίνα πέμπειν δοκεῖ;
ὡς οὔποτ᾽ ἀνδρὶ τῷδε κηρυκευμάτων

μέμψῃ, σὺ δ᾽ αὐτὸς γνῶθι ναυκληρεῖν πόλιν.

ET. ὦ θεομανές. [τε καὶ θεῶν μέγα στύγος]

640

ὦ πανδάκρυτον ἁμὸν Οἰδίπου γένος"

wv \ δὴ fe) 9 ὶ x ,

ὦμοι, πατρὸς δὴ νῦν ἀραὶ τελεσφόροι.
ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε κλαίειν οὔτ᾽ ὀδύρεσθαι πρέπει,

636—638. The difficulties found in
these verses (see Wecklein) have arisen,
I think, entirely from miscomprehension
of the plot and of the situation at this
point. See the /troduction. The man
hesitates and apologizes, because he per-
ceives from the demeanour of the king
and the bystanders that something terri-
ble has happened, and cannot understand
what it is.

637. ἤδη from this point, his duty of
reporting being at an end.—yvo0e decide;
for the formula, a disclaimer of responsi-
bility, cf. Eur. Med. 1222 καί μοι τὸ μὲν σὸν
ἐκπόδων ἔστω λόγου, γνώσει yap αὐτὴ ζη-
μίας ἀποστροφήν.---τίνα πέμπειν δοκεῖ; It
is more grammatical and more effective to
take this as an independent, not a de-
pendent, question, interrupting the main
sentence, which would have concluded as
it eventually concludes in v. 639. Cf. τίς
ξυστήσεται ; IN Ὁ. 422.

640. Paley observes truly that Aes-
chylus hardly ever commences the iam-
bic senarius with a dactyl except in
proper names, though the MS. gives an
example in Cho. 215 καὶ τίνα σύνοισθά
μοι καλουμένῃ βροτῶν ; (τίνα ξύνοισθα ᾿),
and thinks the present verse probably
spurious. As it stands, it can scarcely
be correct: θεῶν μέγα στύγος must be
intended for θεοῖς μέγα στυγούμενον
deeply hated of the gods; but where is
such a use of μέγας to be found? Soph.
O. C. 439 μείξω κολαστὴν is different, and
itself doubtful (see Jebb’s note); Eur.
Med. 549 μέγας φίλος means not ‘a
great friend’ in the English sense, but ‘a

powerful friend’. On the other hand
there is no apparent motive for the
interpolation. My own belief, as indi-
cated in the text, is that the words ὦ
Geouavés are genuine, and no more,
the passionate interjection standing, like
ged, αἰαῖ, and the rest, extra metrum,
and being followed by a pause. That
tragedy allowed such broken lines in
suitable places we know from Sophocles
O. Z. 1468, where there are three within
a short space ἴθ᾽ dvat—rl φημι;---λέγω
rt;—and in Eur. Med. 1122 we have
probably another—Myjdea, φεῦγε, φεῦγε
—which like this has been filled up.
The preservation of those in the Oedipus
is only due to the fact that there are
three of them, and that the first is not
even part of a verse. This opinion is
strengthened by the schol.—® θεοῖς
ἐπιμαινόμενε" ἐπιστρατεύῃ yap πατρίδι καὶ
πατρῴοις θεοῖς (though the explanation is
not correct: see the /#troduction). The
writer took θεομανές to be masculine, re-
ferring to Polynices, and this commends
itself as right; but as the MS. now runs
it would scarcely occur to any one to
separate v. 640 from v. 641. The note
therefore is older than the interpolation,
and justifies us in omitting it. It will be
observed that the scholium entirely ignores
theinterpolated words, though they require
explanation at least as much as ὦ θεομανές.

641. Gpov our: see on Φ. 4043 we,
the offspring of Oedipus.

643. κλαίειν of personal laments, ϑυσ-
φορώτερος γόος in the event of the
capture of the town.

ww

a

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAS. 79

μὴ καὶ τεκνωθῇ δυσφορώτερος γόος.

ἐπωνύμῳ δὲ κάρτα, ἸΠολυνείκει λέγω, 645
τάχ᾽ εἰσόμεσθα τοὐπίσημ᾽ ὅποι τελεῖ,

εἴ νιν κατάξει χρυσότευκτα γράμματα

> » 3 ’ ’ 4 A

ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος φλύοντα, συμφοίτω φρενῶν.

9 9 φ Α al f 4 (al

εἰ δ᾽ ἡ Διὸς παῖς παρθένος Δίκη παρῆν

ἔργοις ἐκείνου καὶ φρεσίν, τάχ᾽ ἂν τόδ᾽ qv"

650

ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε νιν φυγόντα μητρόθεν σκότον,
οὔτ᾽ ἐν τροφαῖσιν, οὔτ᾽ ἐφηβήσαντά πω,
οὔτ᾽ ἐν γενείου ξυλλογῇ τριχώματος,
Δίκη προσεῖδε καὶ κατηξιώσατο᾽
δ᾽ 3 “ \ θ \ ,
ovd ἐν πατρῴας μὴν χθονὸς κακουχίᾳ 655

645. πολυνείκει final εἰ over an erasure.

645. ἸΠολυνείκει: this form differs
slightly from the natural accusative, as
in v. 504 (to which it is changed in the
later Mss.). It is not ‘I mean him called

-Polynices’ but ‘by ἐπωνύμῳ κάρτα I mean

κάρτα πολυνεικεῖ᾽, See vv. 564, 628, 665.

646. τελεῖ future.

648. A fine and effective specimen of
the alliteration upon 7, ¢, which occurs
from time to time in this play. See the
introductory speech. —ovpdolre φρενών :
his mad pair of wanderers, viz. the figures
of Right and the warrior represented upon
his shield. For the form of σύμφοιτος, an
adjective used as substantive, cf. περί-
goros, and for the construction with it of
the genitive (of ‘respect’ or ‘ablative’ ?)
φρενῶν cf. παράκοπος φρενῶν and the like.
The description ‘wanderers’ is of course
literally as well as metaphorically appro-
priate to the exiles. συμφοίτω φρενῶν is
in apposition to χρυσότευκτα γράμματα,
or rather is substituted for it as a
description of the whole ἐπίσημα, It
must be remembered that the figures as
well as the letters are χρυσότευκτα (v.
631) and that all are γράμματα, which in
the Greek sense of γράφειν, includes
anything ‘drawn’, and not merely
‘writing’.—A schol. saw that γράμματα
has this larger meaning—ovx εἶπεν θεὸς

é

654. προσεῖπε. 655. οὔτ᾽.
(¢.¢. Δίκη) ἢ ἄνθρωπος (i.e. the ἀνὴρ
Tevxnorns) ἀλλὰ τὰ χρυσᾶ γράμματα.
The corrector m’ has gone far to spoil
this verse by the marginal note σὺν
golrw, from which and his gloss μανίᾳ
comes the current reading σὺν ¢olry:
apart from the injury to the sense, σὺν
is misused, and φοῖτος (d#straction) is a
word not known to exist and not
regularly formed. The verb is φοιτάω
(not φοιτέω) and the substantive, if it was
used, would naturally be φοίτη.

651. φυγόντα 1.2. when new-born.
φεύγοντα Blomfield, in the act of birth.
μητρόθεν σκότον 1.4. τὸν ἐν τῇ μητρὶ
σκότον : cf. Lum. 668, Pind. O/. vi. 43,
Nem. 1. 35.

654. προσεῖδε B. Martini. εἶδεν ad-
τὸν καὶ ἐφίλησεν Schol., from which it
appears that προσεῖπε is an error or
correction. Either /ooked upon or greeted
is good in 56εη56.---κατηξιώσατο owned,
recognised, the affirmative contrary to
ἀπηξιώσατο disowned; cf. the analogy of
κατάφημι (afirn:) ἀπόφημι (deny). The
verb might also mean condescended (see
ἀξιοῦσθαι), with προσιδεῖν or προσειπεῖν
supplied, but the other construction is
simpler.—Weil reads κοὐκ ἀπηξιώσατο, but
if we may trust the analogy cited the
text is really equivalent to this.

80 | AIZXYAOY

οἶμαί νιν αὐτῷ viv παραστατεῖν πέλας,
ἢ δῆτ᾽ ἂν εἴη πανδίκως ψευδώνυμος
Δίκη, ξυνοῦσα φωτὶ παντόλμῳ φρένας.
τούτοις πεποιθὼς εἶμι καὶ ξυστήσομαι

αὐτός: τίς ἄλλος μᾶλλον ἐνδικώτερος ;

660

ἄρχοντί τ᾽ ἄρχων καὶ κασυγνήτῳ κάσις,
ἐχθρὸς σὺν ἐχθρῷ στήσομαι. φέρ᾽ ὡς τάχος---
[κνημῖδας, αἰχμῆς καὶ πετρῶν προβλήματα.

ΧΟ.

657. ἤδητ᾽. 663.

656. αὐτῷ νῦν. The pronoun is em-
phatic and with νῦν would be approxi-
mately rendered in English by Aes
present self or him as he now ts. Δίκη,
having never favoured him in previous
conditions, will not choose just his
present enterprise to commence her
intercourse. As has been before observed,
the use of αὐτός, unless for emphasis, is
very rare in Aeschylus. As unemphatic
pronouns can be supplied from the con-
text, the insertion of them is a sacrifice of
force to simplicity and clearness, and
alien from the weighty and sententious
Aeschylean style. With the light enclitic
pronouns yu, σφε etc., this is not felt, but
αὐτός, if needless, has an incongruous
effect, and where it occurs an emphasis is
to be looked for.—pev8avunos ξυνοῦσα,
because the association would be wz-
natural, ob κατὰ δίκην ; see on Vv. 594.

660. Note the effect of the stop; see
v. 566.—tls κτλ. Who should be preferred
Jor his better claim? the two compara-
tives have each their separate effect and
are not merely cumulative.

663. Seven corrections of this in-
corrigible verse are given by Wecklein ;
Dindorf omits 661—3, Prien 662—3, the
ground of objection being really in 663.
The argument from the silence of the
Schol. goes too far, for there are no
notes on 659—660, not to mention many
other unimpeachable lines. As for 663,

μή, φίλτατ᾽ ἀνδρῶν, Οἰδίπου τέκος, γένῃ
ὀργὴν ὁμοῖος τῷ κάκιστ᾽ αὐδωμένῳ"

665

πετρῶν accent erased over e.

nothing short of re-writing it would get
rid of the obvious flaws both in the whole
conception and in almost every word;
the correction, if such it can be called, of
Weil, αἰχμήν τις αἰχμητῶν θ᾽ ἅπερ mpo-
βλήματα, is the only one which goes far
enough to be effective. The simplest
course, and the most logical (for it gives
a cause for the assumed interpolation), is
to omit 663 only; and if ever there was
a situation justifying a dramatic inter-
ruption, it is this. From the words φέρ᾽
ws τάχος it does not clearly appear that
Eteocles calls for anything, as φέρε may
mean simply Come; and the course of the
play would suggest that he is armed
already. However the Ms. no doubt
represents the stage tradition, founded,
as Paley and others point out, on the
somewhat similar situation in Euripides
(Phoenissae 779. ET. ἐκφέρετε τεύχη
πάνοπλά τ᾽ ἀμφιβλήματα) ; and it has the
practical advantage of explaining the
delay.—mrerpev: it is scarcely worth
while to correct the accent, for the writer
of this verse may well have confused
πέτρα and πέτρος."

665. τῷ κάκιστ᾽ αὐδωμένῳ Lim named
by the dreadful name, Πολυνείκει, as in v.
566 εἰς. : αὐδωμένῳ is an imperfect par-
ticiple.
scholiasts and later commentators with
τῷ ὑπὸ σοῦ βλασφημουμένῳ. But the
words ὑπὸ σοῦ can scarcely be supplied. —

This interpretation divides the |

a

“Ty

we

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBA2. 81

ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρας ᾿Αργείοισι Καδμείους ἅλις

3 A A. Ἁ

ἐς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν αἷμα yap καθάρσιον.

9 A 3 e , “ 3 3 ’

ἀνδροῖν δ᾽ ὁμαίμοιν θάνατος ὧδ᾽ αὐτοκτόνος---

οὐκ ἔστι γῆρας τοῦδε τοῦ μιάσματος. .
ET. εἴπερ κακὸν φέροι τις αἰσχύνης ἄτερ, ᾿ς 670

ἔστω μόνον γὰρ κέρδος ἐν τεθνηκόσιν'

κακῶν δὲ κἀσχρῶν οὔτιν᾽ εὐκλείαν ἐρεῖς.

667. χέρας. 668. αὐτόκτονοσ.

‘*Praestat active intelligere αὐδωμένῳ᾽"
Hermann; but there is no authority for
a deponent αὐδῶμαι. Paley, rejecting it
here, cites for it Zum. 383 καὶ δνοφεράν
τιν᾽ ἀχλὺν κατὰ δώματος αὐδᾶται πολύ-
στονος φάτις (where αὐδᾶται is passive,
ἀχλὺν being an ‘accusative in apposition
to the sentence’) and Cho. 151 καιάνᾳ
τοῦ θανόντος ἐξαυδωμένας, a very obscure
and doubtful passage.

667. αἷμα yap καθάρσιον for there ts
blood for the cleansing, viz. the blood of
the expiatory victim, by which homicide
other than the shedding of kindred
blood might be washed away, see Zum.
452 gor ἂν πρὸς ἀνδρὸς αἵματος καθαρσίουν
σφαγαὶ καθαιμάξωσι νεοθήλου βοτοῦ. Ob-
serve that καθάρσιος being active not

passive, alua cannot be referred to the

blood shed by the homicide.—Two points
of ancient religious law are to be noticed
here: (1) all homicide requires purgation,
even that of an enemy in war; it is a
question of ceremonial uncleanness with
which moral justification has nothing to
do; and (2) the homicide which cannot
be purged is that done by one man on
another of the same tribe; the slaying
of Argive by Cadmean is purgeable;
that of Cadmean by Cadmean, by impli-
cation, isnot. This is specially remark-
able here, because the ancient principle,

though rightly stated, is too wide for the

dramatic purpose, being adapted to it in
semblance by the ambiguous word ὅμαι-
pos. In strictness all Cadmeans are for
this purpose ὅμαιμοι, though we read,
and are meant to read, the word here

V. #E.

to ἴσως dy τις κακὸν φέροι.

672. εὔκλειαν.

as meaning ‘brother’ in the modern
sense.

668. θάνατος ὧδ᾽ avroxrévos death by
kindred murder such as this, te. as the
slaying of Eteocles or Polynices by the
other. The construction is broken for
rhetorical effect.

670—672. The logic of this speech,
both in itself and in relation to the pre-
ceding, is broken and obscure, from the
excitement of the speaker. The sense
may be filled up thus—‘Loss, even to
the loss of life, a man might bear for
such religious motives as you allege, if
he could save honour: but not other-
wise, for the dead have nothing but
honour. To refuse the challenge of
Polynices is to lose honour and all to-
gether; and good therefore in no way’.—
ἔστω let it pass, well and good, equivalent
The Schol. (et
ὅλως τις ἀτυχεῖ, καλὸν τὸ δίχα αἰσχύνης)
and some commentators punctuate thus,
εἴπερ κακὸν φέροι Tis, αἰσχύνης ἄτερ ἔστω,
nor can this be proved wrong.—pévoy
γὰρ κέρδος ἡ εὔκλεια (schol.), supplied
boldly from αἰσχύνης drep.—ty. The
Scholl, comment on ὃν. There seems to
be no reason for preferring either accen-
tuation.—otriv εὐκλείαν ἐρεῖς : for οὐκ
ἐρεῖς οὐδὲν εὐκλεές, οὐδὲν ἐπαινέσεις, you
(one) can say no praise of: i.e. cannot
call it good any way. κακῶν neuter.
The metre of εὐκλείᾶν is, as Paley re-
marks, not more irregular than the Attic
use of avola, see v. 389. The Scho.
(fexa γε τῶν els αὐτὸν γενομένων κακῶν
καὶ αἰσχρῶν ἄδοξος) seems to have read a

6

82 AIZXYAOY

XO.

τί μέμονας, τέκνον ; μήτι σε θυμοπλη-

στρ. α΄.

Ons δορίμαργος ata φερέτω κακοῦ δ᾽

ἔκβαλ᾽ ἔρωτος ἀρχάν.
ET.

675

2 A ” 4 > 3 , ,
ἐπεὶ τὸ πρῶγμα κάρτ᾽ ἐπισπέρχει θεός,

ἴτω κατ᾽ οὖρον, κῦμα Κωκυτοῦ λαχόν,
Φοίβῳ στυγηθὲν ππᾶν τὸ Λαΐου γένος.

ΧΟ.

674.

γε in this verse, perhaps after αἰσχρῶν.
It seems necessary to take εὐκλείαν λέγειν
loosely, as above suggested, as the speaker
cannot mean to say ‘that which is disho-
‘nourable as well as mischievous is not ho-
nourable’.—It is not surprising that these
‘three lines have provoked many cor-
‘rections (see Wecklein’s Appendix). They
are in fact barely intelligible. But it
must be remarked that most of what
is said by Eteocles in this scene (see
682—4 and 688—9gr1) is not only obscure,
but obscure in the same strange way.
My own belief is that this obscurity is
intentional. It should be remembered that
Eteocles is wrought up to the state de-
‘scribed in the Zempest, ‘All three of
them are desperate: their great guilt,
Like poison given to work a great time
after, Now ’gins to bite their spirits”.
He is possessed, as he says himself, by a
fiend (v. 682), the embodiment of his
‘own fierce passions of greed and hatred.
It is by no means a reproach against
a tragic poet, that the language of such a
character in such a situation does not
yield much result to a close logical
scrutiny.

674. Sopluapyov?

677. κῦμα Koxvrot λαχόν : doomed
to Cocytus’ wave, literally ‘having received
‘Cocytus’ wave as their lot’.

678. Φοίβῳ στυγηθὲν : see v. 731.
680. ἀνδροηλασίαν: apparently an

error of spelling for ἀνδρηλασίαν, for
which form cf. βοηλασία and ἀνδρηλάτης
(v. 624). ‘If the word be genuine, which

ὠμοδακής σ᾽ ἄγαν ἵμερος ἐξοτρύ-
vet πικρόκαρπον ἀνδροηλασίαν τελεῖν

4 a
aQvT. a.

680

δορὶ μάργοσ corr. by m’.

it well may be, ἀρνδρηλασίαν τελεῖν, 20
jintsh his banishment, is a euphemistic
expression for ‘to banish him beyond
return’ by death; and this brings out the
force of πικρόκαρπον, bitter of frutt, since
the penalty of shedding kindred blood
was precisely the banishment of the
slayer.—atparos οὐ θεμιστοῦ depends
upon ἵμερος. Note that in ὠμοδακής and
αἷμα ov θεμιστόν the shedding of kindred
blood is regarded as a kind of impious
rite, the eating of things raw (see ὠμό-
gayos, ὠμοφαγία) being to the Greeks

-‘a ceremonial act connected with certain

rituals. To the same vocabulary belongs
τελεῖν, the fixed word for ‘to perform
a rite (ré\os)’.—dy8poxraclay m’, and all
or almost all the modern texts. The form,
recalling the sacrificial terms ὠρνοκτασία,
σνοκτασία, βουκτασία etc., suits excellently
with the context, and simplifies the con-
struction of αἵματος. On the other hand,
it is technically not a probable correc-
tion; as it leaves the MS. reading inex-
plicable: a word like dvdpy acta is not
likely to be an invention. The schol.
is confused and at the critical point
‘corrupt—% ἄλογος ἄγαν ἐπιθυμία παρορμᾷ
ἡ πικρὸν τὸν καρπὸν ἔχουσα εἰς ταυτὸν οὖν
‘trovds ἄνδρας ἀδίκου ἕνεκεν αἵματος, ἵν ἢ
ὅτι μέλλουσιν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἀλλήλους ἀναιρεῖν.
Nothing certain can be made out of this
note: I have therefore left the text as it
stands.—muxpéxapmos Weil and Paley
from the schol., perhaps rightly: the
change does not affect the sense.

om

wt

ων

ΕΠΤᾺ ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ. 83

αἵματος οὐ θεμιστοῦ.

ET. φίλου γὰρ αἰσχρά μοι πατρὸς τέλει ἀρὰ
ξηροῖς ἄσλαυστος ὄμμασιν προσιξάνει
λέγουσα κέρδος πρότερον ὑστέρου μόρου.

XO. ἀλλὰ σὺ μὴ ᾿ποτρύνου᾽ κακὸς οὐ κεκλή-

στρ. β΄. 685

on βίον εὖ κυρήσας" μελάναιγις δ᾽ οὐκ
εἶσι δόμων "Epwws, ὅταν ἐκ χερῶν

682. τελεῖ,

682. αἰσχρὰ (feminine) higcous, hor-
rible to see, the Latin ¢urpis, is a natural
and effective epithet of the Erinys.—
ἐχθρὰ γεέεε.----τέλενα, sure, fatal, setf-accom-
plishing (for this sense of τέλειος see Φ).
-817) depends in strict analysis on λέγουσα

-and is further explained by κέρδος.. μόρου:

but in effect τέλεια serves as an adverb of
manner to the whole description ξηροῖς...
μόρου, and hence its position. Translate
—Aye, for with fatal suggestion my loving
Jather’s hideous Curse sits close beside we
saying, ‘There ts something better .than
death deferred !’.—rédaw’ Wordsworth,
μέλαιν᾽ Weil: but τέλεια is indispensable,
since it is by this word that the speech is
connected with the preceding: see τελεῖν
.in uv. 680: τελῶ γάρ, says Eteocles, ὅτι
«τέλεια λέγει. I correct the accentuation.
683. axAavoros. ἄκλαυτος Butler;
who seems to be right in replacing the
‘nominative case; the alternative con-
-struction of ὄμμασιν with αἰσχρὰ is
‘forced, and the double epithet ξηροῖς
ἀκλαύστοις is not satisfactory. The form
«ἄκλαυστος is not ‘Attic’, but it cannot be
‘assumed that the Athenian poets were re-
gular in such matters. ὄμμασιν: for the
construction of the case with ἄκλαυστος cf.
πόλις φθίνουσα κάλυξιν ἐγκάρποις χθονός
Soph. Ο. 7. 25: it has a locative force. —
Paley takes ὄμμασιν of the eyes of Eteo-
cles, in dependence upon προσιζάνει, which
is good in grammar but scarcely in sense.
‘It is the fiendish figure herself who is

‘tearless, that is, remorseless.
κέρδος πρότερον, literally, ‘a

gain preferable’ or ‘superior’; for this

683. ἀκλαύστοισ.

sense see Lex. σῦν. πρότερος, πρῶτος.
The κέρδος πρότερον is the saving of
honour by accepting the challenge: see
vy. 671. That this is the meaning is, I
think, clearly proved by the reply. The
antithesis of πρότερον ὑστέρου is an anti-
thesis only of sound.—None of the cor-
rections proposed (see Wecklein) make

.the meaning more clear, nor, I submit,

ought they to be admitted in this passage
if they did. See on v. 670.

685. A coward thou wilt not be called,
being thus prosperous in thy fortune.
βίον ‘state of life, condition of life’ is
constructed as an accusative of respect
with εὖ κυρήσας (εὖ πράξας schol.).
Eteocles, they urge, will not incur the

-reproach of cowardice, by refusing to

stake his royal fortunes against the de-
speration of the outlawed Polynices. The

-condition ‘if thou refuse the challenge’ is
‘to be supplied, cf. ν. 672.
-‘mark of Enobarbus on the challenge of

See the ré-

Antony (Ant. and Cleopatra 111. 13. 28),

Yes, like enough, high-battled Caesar
‘will Unstate his happiness, and be
Staged to the show Against a sworder’.

686. μελάναιγις δ᾽ οὐκ εἶσι κτλ. I
have added the mark of interrogation,
which is necessary, if the negative be
retained. —And for the fiend who plagueth
the house, will she not depart from it,

when the gods receive the offering of the

hands? Except this no change is ab-
solutely required. The metre is not per-

fectly regular (cf. 693), but there is a

similar irregularity in ἡ. 685 compared
with v. 692, and see the Appendix on

6—2

84 AIZXYAOY

θεοὶ θυσίαν δέχωνται ;

ET. θεοῖς μὲν ἤδη πως παρημελήμεθα,
χάρις δ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ὀλομένων θαυμάξεται:;
τί οὖν ἔτ᾽ ἂν σαίνοιμεν ὀλέθριον μόρον;
ΧΟ, νῦν ὅτε σοι παρέστακεν' ἐπεὶ δαίμων

λήματος ἂν τροπαίᾳ χρονίᾳ μεταλ-
λακτὸς ἴσως ἄν ἔλθοι θαλερωτέρῳ

πνεύματι νῦν δ᾽ ἔτι ζεῖ.

ΕἼ. ἐξέξεσ᾽ ἂν γὰρ Οἰδίπον κατ᾽ εὔγματα;

693. ἀντροπαῖα χρονία.

694. θαιλωτέρωι.

696. ἐξέζεσαν. κατεύγματα.

metres. —Sésev depends directly on Ἐρινύς
and more loosely, in an ablative sense,
upon elot.—peddvaryis ἐκ δ᾽ εῖσι Weil
(and Wecklein), a doubtful arrangement
of words.—The schol. on v. 685 runs
ov yap ἡ τὴν φοβερὰν ἔχουσα αἰγίδα
"Epis εἰς τὸν οἶκον ἐκείνου εἴσεισιν, οὗ οἱ
θεοὶ θυσίας προσδέχονται, and on wv. 687
κατὰ (?) τῶν δόμων τοῦ ὁσίου ἀνδρός, οὗ
.ol θεοὶ τὰς θυσίας δέχονται. Fence Brunck
infers δόμους and Prien ὅτου.

690. χάρις δ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν: τὴν ἀπώλειαν
ἡμῶν ἐν χάριτος μοίρᾳ λαμβάνουσιν" 7 μετὰ
θάνατον ἴσως εὐκλείας τευξόμεθα. ἄλλως"
μετὰ θάνατον, φησίν, αἱ πράξεις τῶν ἀν-
θρώπων θαυμάζονται. τί οὖν οὐχὶ γεν-
δράσαντες ἀποθανούμεθα, τὸν
Πολυνείκη ὡς ἀσεβῇ ἀνελόντες, ἀλλὰ κο-
λακεύομεν τὸν θάνατον, καὶ οὐχὶ χωροῦμεν
πρὸς αὐτόν ; schol. Of these explana-
tions the first only is even possible, ‘the
gift respected (by the gods) at our hands
is the gift we offer by dying’; θαυμάζειν
having the sense ‘to respect, regard’.
But even so the form of expression is
forced and the use of the participle
doubtful. A simpler and much better
rendering is ‘Gifts (or thanks) from us
destroyed move their wonder’, literally
‘are wondered at’. The gods, says Eteo-
cles bitterly, who have long given us over
to destruction, wonder to see us pursue
them with worship fruitless and un-
earned.

692. νῦν ὅτε σοι παρέστακεν. This

ναῖόν τι

-the evil influence.

ts the hour of his presence, the presence,
that is, of the fatal power which seeks
the destruction of the house. Weil refers
to Supp. 638 viv ὅτε καὶ θεοὶ Διογενεῖς
κλύοιτε. δαίμων generally, like θεός, fa/e,
As to the metre see
Appendix.—The translation ‘ Now is the
permitted hour’ (rapéoraxe = πάρεστι) is
also possible, but does not suit the con-
text.

693. ἂν tpowalq Heath: dy antici-
pates the following ἂν in v.694. τροπαία
is a substantive signifying ‘change of
wind’,

694- θα"λωτέρωι (one letter erased).
It is uncertain what should be restored.
θαλερωτέρῳ (m’) is the obvious suggestion:
there is no precise authority for such an
expression as θαλερὸν πρεῦμα a soft wind;
on the other hand such phrases as θαλε-
ρὸν δάκρυ might suggest the meaning
soft, and the use of such archaic words
in the poets is often very loose.—edepw-
τέρῳ Conington, from the interpretation
of Hesychius θελεμόν" ἥσυχον : χαλαρω-
τέρῳφ Hermann: θεμερωτέρῳ Badham: see
also Wecklein’s Appendix.

696. Aye, to such fierceness was it

doubtless wrought by Oedipus’ impreca-

tion. ἐξέζεσ᾽ dv: literally ‘it must have
become thus hot according to Oedipus’
prayer’; the nominative is, as from the
nature of such a retort it should be, still
that of ζεῖ, the δαίμων or πνεῦμα δαίμονος,
the fatal violence ta which Eteocles is

=

‘te

ΕΠΤΑ Elli OHBAZ. 85

ἄγαν δ᾽ ἀληθεῖς ἐνυπνίων φαντασμάτων

ὄψεις, πατρῴων χρημάτων δατήριοι.
ΧΟ. πείθου γυναιξίν, καίπερ οὐ στέργων ὅμως.

ΕἼ. λέγοιτ᾽ av ὧν avn τις.

οὐδὲ χρὴ μακράν. 700

ΧΟ. μὴ λθῃς ὁδοὺς σὺ τάσδ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑβδόμαις πύλαις.
ΕἼ. τεθηγμένον τοί μ᾽ οὐκ ἀπαμβλυνεῖς λόγῳ.

ΧΟ.

698. δοτήριεε---δατήριοι τη΄,

yielding. Here ἄν with the past tense
of the indicative signifies, not what
would have happened upon certain con-
ditions, but what, as is conjectured, may
or must have happened under the known
conditions. For this use of dv (and κεν)

- see Kiihner Gr. Gramm. 8 392, 4. 6.8.

Soph. O. 7. 523 ἀλλ᾽ ἦλθε μὲν δὴ τοῦτο
τοὔνειδος τάχ᾽ dy (such a reproach may

‘have been uttered); Hes. Zheog. 703

τοῖος γάρ κε μέγιστος δοῦπος ὀρώρει (such
and no louder must have been the crash) ;
Agam. 924 ηὔξω θεοῖς δείσας ἂν ὧδ᾽ Epdery
τάδε (you vowed perhaps in some mo-
ment of fear to do as you are now doing);
Ar. Ran. 1023 6 θεασάμενος πᾶς ἄν τις
ἀνὴρ ἠράσθη datos εἶναι (a play at seeing
which any man must have longed to be
a fighter).—By dividing the letters as
in the text, all difficulty seems to be
removed from this line; the later copies
give éféfecev....xarevyuara, but, apart
from the difficulty of this expression in
itself, and the want of proper relation
to the preceding sentence, the technical
improbability of ἐξέζεσεν is very great.
Why was ἐξέζεσαν written if the original
was ἐξέζεσεν, in appearance so much
simpler? For κατ᾽ εὔγματα some inde-
pendent support may perhaps be found in
v. 804 πατρὸς κατ᾽ εὐχὰς in a passage full
of imitations of other parts of the play.
607. This vision, as Hermann ob-
serves, was probably described in the
preceding tragedy of Oedipus. From the
allusions to it which here follow (e.g.
vw. 714 foll.), it would seem that the
Ἐρινύς of Oedipus prophesied to Eteocles

νίκην ye μέντοι καὶ κακὴν τιμᾷ θεός.

700. τίς.

or showed him in a dream the two bro-
thers disputing their father’s heritage,
and a ‘stranger from Scythia’, interpreted
to mean the sword of iron or Σκυθικὸς
σίδηρος, arbitrating between them.—ws
τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις φαντασθείς, ὅτι δι
αἵματος αὐτῷ ἔσται ἡ τῶν χρημάτων δια-
you}. Schol.

699. πείθου: ‘let women persuade
thee’, less peremptory than πιθοῦ (Blom-
field),

joo. Ye must plead for that which
there ts a way to do, i.e. for what is
possible. ἄνη accomplishment, ἄνυσις καὶ
πρᾶξις Hesychius,

ἼΟΙ. ὁδός supplies the defect of a
verbal substantive cognate to ἱέναι, ἐλ-
θεῖν.---ἐφ᾽ ἑβδόμαις πύλαις : for (the de-
fence of) the seventh gate, or to defend ete. ;
the dative with ἐπί expresses the object
of any action, the relation of the object
to the action being determined by the
context; see on wv. 531. Not of course
‘zo the gate’.

702. Tot marks that the phrase is a
proverb applied to the present case.

03. ‘** There zs a victory, if not one
of bravery, which the god holds in
honour’, Compare 4g. 915 (933) ἦ καὶ
σὺ νίκην τήνδε δήριος ries; where the
meaning seems to be τὸ νικᾶσθαι ἀντὶ τοῦ
νικᾶν. In Hum. 863 (904) we have ὁποῖα
γίκης μὴ κακῆς éxloxora’’—the context
supports the meaning ‘a victory by which
the defeated do not lose’—“It seems
probable that νίκη κακή meant ‘a victory
which consists in a defeat’, an expression
applied to those who do well in allowing

86 AIZXYAOY
ET. οὐκ ἄνδρ᾽ ὅπλίτην τοῦτο χρὴ στέργειν ἔπος.
ΧΟ. ἀλλ᾽ αὐτάδελφον αἷμα δρέψασθαι θέλεις ; 705
ET. θεῶν διδόντων οὐκ ἂν ἐκφύγοις κακά.
XO. πέφρικα τὰν ὠλεσίοικον στρ. α΄.
: θεόν, ov θεοῖς ὁμοίαν,

παναληθῆ, κακόμαντιν,

πατρὸς εὐκταίαν ᾿Ἐρινύν,

τελέσαι τὰς περιθύμους

themselves to be beaten or convinced.
So Ajac. 1353 παῦσαι" κρατεῖς τοι τῶν
φίλων νικώμενος᾽᾽. (Paley.) From &ros
in wv 7o4 and ro: in the last citation it
appears that the expressions νέκη κακή
ὦ coward’s victory and κρατέϊν vixdpevos
were proverbial or familiar. τιμᾷ Ocde
God (or perhaps rather the goddess, Νίκη
herself) values zt, i.e. in a large and wise
view winning in the end is winning,
though it may have the appearance of
defeat for the moment. The expression
may have arisen out of an apologue or
fable-—Note γε, ‘it is νίκη at any rate, al-
though κακὴ νική᾽.---ἰ find Paley’s expla-
nation quite satisfactory. For suggested
corrections see Wecklein’s Appendix.

704- That is not a saying which a
soldier may ike. Compare our ‘discre-
tion is the better part of valour’..

705. αἷμα δρέψασθαι: a difficult ex-
pression. It is not easy to believe that
δρέψασθαι to pluck or gather is simply “a
bold metaphor” for fo sked (Lidd. and
Scott). Nothing in the classical use of
δρέπεσθαι points to this conclusion. The
Lex. cites Bion 1. 22 al δὲ βάτοι νι» épxo-
μέναν τείροντι καὶ ἱερὸν αἷμα δρέπονται:
but it scarcely follows that because bram-
bles may be said to ‘pluck’ blood from
the feet, a warrior can be said to ‘pluck’
the blood of another. Moreover, Bion
is a very unsafe authority for Aeschylus.
On the other hand the use of αἷμα in
poetry is singularly loose; one of its
meanings is ‘a deed of blood, murder’;
thus we have εἴργασται μητρῴον αἷμα,
ὅμαιμον αἷμα γίγνεται etc. (see Lex. 5. v.).

‘ling’.

710

The metaphor δρέπειν again is very com-
mon: for the winning of a prize or the
performing of the glorious act which
deserves it, a metaphor naturally sug-

gested by the ‘wreath’ of victory: ¢

κορυφὰς ἀρετᾶν ἀπὸ πασᾶν δρέπειν to
gather every crowning explott (Pindar Ol.
I. 20), ᾿Ισθμιάδων δρέπεσθαι ἄωτον (Pind.
Nem. 2. 13) etc. (see Lex. s. v.). The
present expression ‘to pluck the murder
of a brother’ seems to arise from this
use, meaning in prose ‘to make a prize
of it, treat it as an object of soldierly
ambition’; observe the tone of Eteocles’’
previous speech and particularly the words
ἄνδρ᾽ ὁπλίτην. So taken the figure is
bold, but it is not, like δρέπεσθαι for fo
shed, an abuse of language.

406. From ill which the gods: give
there is no escape. κακὰ is the object of
both verbs; the second person of the
optative with dy, like the Latin second
person of the subjunctive, answers to the
English use of ‘you’ for the indefinite
‘one’, 4.93. Soph. Ad. 155 τῶν γὰρ pe-
γάλων ψυχῶν lels οὐκ dv dudpros, where
(as by m’ here) the second person has
been wrongly changed by a corrector to
the third.—In διδόντων. there is a last
touch of Eteocles’ irony.—With these
words he rushes from the stage.

ο7. πέφρικα “Epwiv τελέσαι, 7
shudder at the thought of the Erinys,
fulfilling ete. lit. ‘at the Erinys’ fulfil-
Ἐρινὺν τελέσαι depends as a sub-
stantive upon πέφρικα and the aor. inf. is
timeless. (Not exactly ‘I fear that the
Erinys wif accomplish ’.)

ΟΜ,

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ. 87

κατάρας Οἰδιπόδα βλαψίφρονος"

παιδολέτωρ 5° ἔρις δ᾽ ὀτρύνει.

ξένος δὲ κλήροις ἐπινωμᾶν

9 J
avT. a.

Χάλυβος Σκυθῶν ἄποικος, 715

κτεάνων χρηματοδαίτας

πικρός, ὠμόφρων aidapos,

χθόνα ναίειν διαπήλας,

« \ ’ ᾽
ὁπόσαν καὶ φθιμένοισιν κατέχειν,
τῶν μεγάλων πεδίων ἀμοίρους. ᾿ς 720

712. βλαψίφρονοσ οἰδιπόδα.

713. ἐἔρισ.

714.. κλήρουσ corr. to κλήροισ.

712. Οἰδιπόδα βλαψίφρονος Tricli-
nus.
713. παιδολέτωρ δ᾽ "Epis: ταῦτα παρορ-

| μᾷ.---δῆλον δὲ ὅτι ἐν ταῖς alxparwolas τὰ

παιδία ἀναιρεῖται.---ὑποκοριστικῶς δὲ τὴν
Ἐρινὺν Ἔριν εἶπεν. Schol. The first note
is valuable as confirming the text, which
signifies literally ‘She (the Erinys) is
fatal to children; and Discord calls her
on’, z.¢. ‘children cursed by their father
are thereby in great peril of destruction ;
much more when, as now, they give the
evil pawer an occasion by their quarrel’.
The complete sentence would be παιδο-
Aérwp δέ ἐστι" Ens δ᾽ ὀτρύνει αὐτήν (not
ταῦτα as in the schol.); for the omission
of the pronoun cf. v. 495. In common
prose we should have παιδολέτωρ yap:
but for the earlier use of δέ see Kuehner
Gr. Gramm. § 518, 7. The Erinys was
by function παιδολέτωρ, her special office
being to fulfil the parental curse; the
Scholl. are mistaken in the explanation
of the word, and also in identifying "Epis
with ’Epwis.—Apart from the metre, as
to which see the Appendix, there is no
difficulty in this verse.

714. ξένος κλήροις (ἐστὶν) ἐπινωμᾶν
(αὐτούς): he is but ὦ stranger to the in-
heritance, that he should award it. ém-
νωμᾶν depends as an explanatory infini-
tive upon ξένος, literally ‘foreign to award
it’. Without metaphor, ‘the unfriendly
arbitrament of the sword will be fatal to

those kinsmen who invoke it’,—This is
a better reading, as well as technic-
ally more probable, than κλήρους ἐπι-
νωμᾷ τὰ. ;

717. ᾿'χρηματοδαίτας πικρός one whose
division they will rue.

718—20: literally ‘allotting them se-
verally land to dwell in, as much as (one
might allot) to them even when dead, to
hold it, having no part in those wide
fields’, ὦ. 2. ‘giving them for their only
remnant of all their father’s land only so
much as their dead bodies may fill’: ναίειν
and xaréxew are explanatory infinitives:
ἀμοίρους is rightly in the accusative, as
belonging to the consecutive or expla-
natory κατέχειν (‘‘as if he had written στε
αὐτοὺς κατέχειν αὐτὴν Paley). It might of
course also have been in the dative, fol-
lowing the case of the remoter object
(αὐτοῖς) to διαπήλας, but the text is more
clear. Rendered into the unsuitable En-
glish equivalents the sentence appears
clumsy, but in Greek it is quite simple.
—Ar. Eccl. 592 μηδὲ γεωργεῖν τὸν μὲν
πολλήν, τῷ δ᾽ εἶναι μηδὲ ταφῆναι; Soph.
Oed. Col. 790 χθονὸς λαχὼν τοσοῦτον ἐν-
θανεῖν μόνον; Shakespeare Hen. JV. Part
I. 5. 4, “ But now two paces of the vilest
earth Is room enough ” (Paley).

720. τῶν demonstrative, and probably
accompanied by a gesture, the μεγάλα
πεδία lying in view from the citadel. So
τὰν βαϑύχθον᾽ alay v. 295.

88

AIZXYAOY

ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἂν αὐτοκτονώσιν,

αὐτοδάικτοι θάνωσι,

καὶ χθονία κόνις πίῃ

μελαμπαγὲς αἷμα φοίνιον,

τίς ἂν καθαρμοὺς πόροι,

τίς ἄν σφε λούσειεν; ὦ πόνοι δόμων

στρ. β΄.

725

νέοι παλαιοῖς συμμυγεῖς κακοῖς.

\ /
παλαιγενῆ yap λέγω
παραβασίαν ὠκύποινον,

IA » 9 f ,
αἰῶνα δ᾽ ἐς τρίτον μένει,

᾿Απόλλωνος εὖτε Adios
/
Bia, τρὶς εἰπόντος ἐν

ἄντ. β΄.

730

μεσομφάλοις ἸΠυθικοῖς χρηστηρίοις
θνάσκοντα γέννας ἄτερ σῴζειν πόλιν,

κρατηθεὶς δ᾽ ἐκ φίλων ἀβουλίαν,

721. αὐτοκτόνωσν.

725. καθαρᾳᾳ

στρ. γ. 735

727. παλαιοῖσ.

729. ὠκύπονον corr. to ὠκύποινον,

721. But when by kindred murderers
hinsmen are murderously slain. The re-
ference, as the sequel shows, is to the
parricide of Laius, which entailed on the
house the curse now being fulfilled. The
subject is general, men. For a similar
‘riming’ effect in parallel clauses see wv.
895, 896. —avroxrévws Triclinius, for
metre: but the adverb is not satisfactory,
and see the Appendix.

723. Χθονία κόνις the dust deep
down. There is an opposition between
the substantive and the epithet (oxy-
moron), 85 χθόνιος commonly signifies
‘subterranean’. But the meaning, ‘that
the shedding of blood summons from the
underworld the avenging Erinys’, is the
better conveyed.—xayxwpla Newman, for
metre (and cf. Wecklein); but see the
Appendix.

724. μελαμπαγὲς.... φοίνιον.
v. 629.

729. wapaBaclay perhaps pronounced
παρβασίαν and so written (Porson).

731—737. ᾿Απόλλωγος ... Οἰδιπόδαν.
This (whether δὲ be retained in τ. 735 or
not) is one clause explaining παραβασίαν,

See on

the main construction being εὖτε Adios...
éyelvaro—‘ the transgression committed
when Laius’, contrary to the injunction
of Apollo and yielding to his passion,
begat Oedipus, who slew him.—d«dézrov-
γον... μένει: «τον punished, yet persist-
ing to the third generation; see on v. 578.

733. μεσομφάλοις, containing the sa-
cred ὄμφαλος or ‘navel-stone’ which was
supposed to mark the centre of the earth.

"34. to date childless tf he would save
his country; the stress of the injunction
falls on the participle.

735. 8&. The sentence is more nor-
mal if δὲ be omitted, as by Pauw and
Porson. But if it be retained there is
still no break of construction ; κρατηθεὶς δὲ
is contrasted with τρὶς (μὲν) εἰπόντος, and
as the opposition between the act and
the command is the point of the sentence,
the δὲ may well be right.

ἐκ φίλων dy his love, i.e. his wife;
the word is frequently so used by the
tragedians.—dBovAlay: acc. ‘of respect’
construed with xparnOels—his folly being
overmastered. Or we may correct either
to ἀβουλιᾶν (Dindorf) depending on ἐκ,

<<

ETITA Ell OHBAS. 89

γείνατο μὲν μόρον αὑτῷ,

πατροκτόνον Οἰδιπόδαν,
ὅστε ματρὸς ayvay

σπείρας ἄρουραν, ἵν᾽ ἐτράφη,

ε»,ὔ e /
ῥίζαν alipatoecoay

ἔτλα. παράνοια συνᾶγε

νυμφίους φρενώλης.

κακῶν δ᾽ ὥσπερ θάλασσα Kip ἄγει,

τὸ μὲν πίτνον, ἄλλο δ᾽ ἀείρει,

’ A \ /
τρίχαλον, ὃ καὶ περὶ πρύ-

μναν πόλεως Kaydater’

μεταξὺ δ᾽ ἀλκὰ δι ὀλίγου

741.

or to ἀβουλίᾳ (rece.), because of folly,
imprudently. Technically there is little

or nothing to choose between these; but

the MS. reading is as good as any.

736. μὲν. The antithesis to this μὲν
is not expressed, but implied in μόρον
αὑτῷ, the full sense being ἐγείνατο μὲν,
μόρον δ᾽ αὑτῷ ἐγείνατο: he aid indeed
become a father, but at the cost of his
life. Cf. Soph. O. C. 1370 εἰσορᾷ μὲν οὔ
τί πω ws αὐτίκα, ‘he looks upon thee,
but not as he presently will’,

739. ommepas...trAa: a powerful ex-
pression, to be carefully distinguished
from the common ἔτλη ποιῆσαι he dared
to do. The literal rendering is ‘having
done the deed, he endured’; the force
might be approximately given by ‘he
lived to do it’. It is analogous to the
use of τλῆναι with a passive (πραθέντα
τλῆναι Ag. 1028 Paley), Oedipus being
regarded rather as suffering than as
acting.—o-melpas ἄρουραν.. ῥίζαν: plant
the field with a root; the verb takes to-
gether both the possible accusatives.

4τ. παράνοια.. φρενώλης : a paren-
thetic exclamation.— νυμφίους Laius (not
Oedipus) and his wife.—ovvaye: note the
imperfect tense, implying extension in
time; not ‘united them’, but ‘drew them
till they came together’, ‘would not let

σύναγε.

them stay αρατί᾽.---φρενώλεις m’, a change
not to be justified without independent
evidence ; the form may be.either passive
or active (maddening).

743—745. I have inserted the comma
after ἀείρει, as the sense requires that τρί-
xaXov should be construed with κῦμα, not
with ἄλλο. ‘Asea of disaster, as each wave
falls, another wave rising still, brings the
huge breaker, which even foams about
the city’s helm’.—The description τὸ
μὲν κῦμα πίτνον, ἄλλο δ᾽ ἀειρόμενον ex~
plains by way of apposition the words
κακῶν θάλασσα : for. the second parti-
ciple the finite verb is substituted accord-
ing to the use noted on v. 578. The
subject of delpes is θάλασσα supplied.
Without metaphor, ‘the misfortunes en-
tailed on the house of Laius by his diso-
bedience have followed each other till, as
now, the whole people is involved in the
peril’.—xtpa τρίχαλον a picturesque
equivalent for τρικυμία (Paley).

747—8. And between ἐς but a narrow
defence, the broadness of a wall, literally
‘a defence extends a short interval, a wall
in the breadth’. μεταξὺ δ᾽ ἀλκά: μεταξὺ
δ᾽ ἡμῶν, δι᾽ ὀλίγου ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν πολεμίων
δύναμις τῆς ἡμετέρας, καὶ τὸ διάστημα ὃ
πύργος ὁ διείργων ἐστίν schol. (in the first
clause μεταξὺ ἡμῶν is either carelessly

τείνει πύργος ἐν εὔρει.

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

δέδοικα δὲ σὺν βασιλεῦσι

μὴ πόλις δαμασθῇ.

τέλειαι γὰρ παλαιφάτων ἀραὶ

750
στρ. δ΄.

βαρεῖαι καταλλαγαί: τὰ δ᾽ ὁλοὰ

πελόμεν᾽ οὐ παρέρχεται

πρόπρυμνα δ᾽ ἐκβολῶν φέρει

749. συμβαλεῦσι.

written or has been introduced from a
different note). In accordance with the
metaphor of the previous lines, in which
the beleaguered city is compared to a
ship in a stormy sea, her wail is naturally
compared to the ‘narrow plank’ of the
vessel.—éy εὕρει : ἐν πλάτει, ἐν μεταιχμίῳ
schol. The two glosses represent diffe-
rent views; according to the first ἐν is
tn respect of, according to the second it
is local, the sense being either (1) a wadd
in breadth, or (2) a wall in the (inter-
wening) breadth. Either way the phrase
is in apposition to ἀλκὰ and explains
δι’ ὀλίγου relve.—For numerous cor-
rections of this passage see Wecklein’s
Appendix. 1 cannot persuade myself that
any change is required. As to the metre
see Appendix.

751—56. For an inherited self-ful-
filling curse ts a dangerous ware to traffic
withal: neither doth the merchantman's
wealth, heaped over-high, escape the com-
ing of destruction, but bringeth total
wreck. παλανφάτων masculine, of the
men of οἱά. --- καταλλαγαί, properly ex-
change, commerce, traffic, but here used,
as such abstract substantives frequently
are, in a passive aid concrete sense, for
‘the thing exchanged’ or ‘ merchandise’.
The metaphor of the ship (see the pre-
vious passage) is still continued, the
hereditary curse being aptly likened to
a dangerous freight which increases the
peril of a storm.—td ὀλοὰ πελόμενα
literally, ‘things destructive when they
occur’, The word πελόμενα is not neces-
sary but modifies the sense. The dangers

τέλεια".

751.

of a family or a city are not created by
the ἀραὶ παλαιφάτων, but arise in the
nature of things. The effect of the evil
destiny is that these dangers prove fatal;
the samé thing is put plainly in wv. 749—
50. The ship-metaphor is still pursued,
but the word ὄλβος introduces a slight
transition, not perfectly logical but unob-
jectionable in poetry, to another aspect
of it, in which the freight is not the
curse, but the prosperity, which accord-
ing to Aeschylus’ favourite doctrine. is
itself a source of danger. It may be
noticed that this transition is much
smoothed in the Greek by the order of
the words, which in English cannot be
followed.

πρόπρυμνα ἐκβολῶν (or ἐκβολῶν ?)
utter loss ΟΥ̓ utterness of loss. In such
constructions the neut. adj. practically
supplies the function of an abstract sub-
stantive;. they are particularly common
with superlatives such as ἔσχατα, to which
πρόπρυμνα belongs by sense though not
by form. Kiihner, Gr. Gramm. § 414,
sb. Note the plural in éxSodal, com-
mon in abstract nouns of this type, the
plural being better than the, singular to
exclude the possibility of a concrete
sense. ἐκβολαί wreck from ἐκβάλλειν of
a ‘cast-away’ ship (see Ler. s.v.); that
this is meant rather than the casting-out
of the freight (zactura) is probable from
the sense and from the word πρόπρυμνα
which would apply more naturally to the
loss of the ship than of the merchandise.

dpay (for ἀραὶ) Bothe and many editors ;
but this change has been suggested by

om

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. οἵ

ἀνδρῶν ἀλφηστᾶν 755

ὄλβος ἄγαν παχυνθείς.

tiv’ ἀνδρῶν γὰρ τοσόνδ᾽ ἐθαύμασαν ἄντ. δ΄.

θεοὶ καὶ ξυνέστιοι πόλεως

πολύβατός T ἀγὼν βροτῶν,

ὅσον τότ᾽ Οἰδίπουν τίον, 760

τὰν ἁρπαξάνδραν

Kip ἀφελόντα χώρας;

ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἀρτίφρων στρ. ε΄.
; ἐγένετο μέλεος ἀθλίων

γάμων, én’ dryer δυσφορῶν 765

μαινομένᾳ καρδίᾳ
δίδυμα κάκ᾽ ἐτέλεσεν᾽
7859. πολύβοτόφ τ᾽ αἰὼν. 761.

the error of taking καταλλαγαί to mean
‘reconcilement’ or the like; on this as-
sumption it is impossible to interpret the
MS. reading, or to connect the sentence
with the context; neither does the cor-
rection dpay give any clear meaning or
restore the connexion required. It can-
not be believed that the metaphor of the
ship, pursued in 7v. 743—750 and

‘again in vv. 752—756, is entirely dropped

im the few words which intervene.—rd
δ᾽ ὁλοὰ κτλ. For a large number of
suggested changes see Wecklein’s Afpen-
dix. All of. them (as τελλόμεν᾽ in the
later MSS.) proceed on the supposition that
τὰ ὁλοὰ is nominative: most of the diffi-
culty disappears when τὰ édod is seen to
be an accusative. The use of ré\ec@a is
regular; see Lex, 5. ν.---ἐκβολῶν changed
by πι' to the accusative singular ἐκβολὰν:
but this leaves πρόπρυμνα without con-
struction.

δι. τὸ τέλεια ἀντὶ τοῦ τέλειαι’ ὑφῆκεν
δὲ (he has inserted) τὸ ¢ διὰ τὸ μέτρον.
This note is worth citing, as it accounts
for the erasure of the final ¢ of τέλειαι in
the Ms. It has however obviously been
mis-written and misunderstood. It should
run τὸ τέλειαι ἀντὶ τοῦ τέλεαι" κτλ., and
refers to the two forms τέλεος and τέλειος,
of which the annotator supposed the

ἀναρπαξάνδραν.

767. ἐτέλεσαν corr. to ἐτέλεσεν.

first alone to be correct, the second a
metrical license, though as a fact, both’
forms are correct. The authors of the
Meicean scholia are scarcely to be ac-
cused of asserting that a feminine is a
metrical license for a neuter, or vice versa.

758. ξυγέστιοι πόλεως the citizens
themselves, who shared the feast (wor-
ship) of the city’s gods, and were actually
then assembled to pray for Oedipus’:
success. Compare the opening scene of
the Oedipus Rex.—wbdeos ὁ Dindorf,.

759: πολύβατος Blomfield from the
scholium ὁ ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἐμβατενόμενος
ἀνδρῶν : ἀγὼν Weil, taking ἀγών in the
sense of ἀγορά, the place of assembly, the
crowded market-place (perhaps rather the
assembly itself). This expression is so
appropriate and picturesque, the MS. 50.
difficult to understand, and the error so
slight, that I do not hesitate to adopt.
the corrections.

761. τὰν dpwafdvSpay Butler, Her-.
mann.—«ypa: the Sphinx; see v. 528.

764. ἀθλίων γάμων : this genitive (of
respect) depends both on ἀρτίφρων and
on pédeos—when he saw truly (became
sound of judgment respecting) ¢he hapless
union which was his misery.

766. xpadig Turnebus. —

768—775. This very obscure passage

92 . ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

πατροφόνῳ χερὶ τῶν

κρείσσω τέκνων δ᾽ + am’ ὀμμάτων ἐπλάγχθη"

τέκνοις δ᾽ ἀραίας

ἐφῆκεν ἐπικότους τροφᾶς,
αἰαῖ, πικρογλώσσους ἀράς,

καί σφε σιδαρονόμῳ
διὰ χερί ποτε λαχεῖν
κτήματα' νῦν δὲ τρέω

775

μὴ τελέσῃ καμψίπους ᾿Ἐρινύς.
ΑΙ. θαρσεῖτε, παῖδες μητέρων τεθραμμέναι.
᾿ς πόλις πέφευγεν ἥδε δούλιον ζυγόν"
πέπτωκεν ἀνδρῶν ὀβρίμων κομπάσματα,

πόλις δ᾽ ἐν εὐδίᾳ τε, καὶ κλυδωνίου

Ὶ 1. τροφὰσ.

has been fully considered in the 7,295
duction, § 4 and note.
. 774. λαχεῖν or. obl. for the Adyore
of the direct prayer: see on v. 623.---διὰ,
«λαχεῖν : to be taken together as a com-
pound verb.—Siad χερί Porson.
- 776. καμψίπους ᾿Εἰρινύς the returning
fiend, t.e. ever coming back in successive
generations to wreak successive woes
upon the house, and now appearing at
her due time. The force of this epithet
lies in the first part; it signifies not that
she bends her foot, but that the course of
her feet is like the race-course (to which
κάμπτειν is so frequently applied) and
brings her ever back again and again
to the same place. This interpreta-
tion seems more satisfactory both in
meaning and language than ‘swift of
foot’. To justify this Hermann observes
that ‘to move the limbs easily’ (as of a
horse) is xdywrrew ὑγρῶς τὰ γόνατα, but
surely this goes no way at all to prove
that ‘foot-bending’ could mean ‘swift’.—
ἡ κάμπτουσα τῶν κολαζομένων τοὺς πόδας,
οἱονεὶ ἡ συμποδίζουσα καὶ μὴ ἐῶσα φεύγεν.
Schol.

777- παῖδες μητέρων τεθραμμέναι
children of your mother’ nursing, 1. δ.
soft feminine creatures, an expression of

774. διαχειρίαι.

780
779. πέπτωκεν δ᾽.

gentle contempt for their fears. συγγενεῖς,
ἢ δειλαί, ὑπὸ μητέρων ἁπλῶς τραφεῖσαι
schol., ‘like in nature (to your mothers),
or cowardly, just what their nursing
made you’, a very fair interpretation, in
which ἁπλῶς should not have been changed
to ἁπαλῶς. Grammatically παῖδες μητέ-
βὼν supplies a predicate explaining
τεθραμμέναι, ‘reared so that you are
indeed mothers’ children’: the geni-
tive does not express agency simply,
though this notion is here to be implied
from it. So in Soph. P%dl. 3 (cited by
Paley), where Neoptolemus is described
as κρατίστου πατρὸς ᾿Ελλήνων τραφείς,
‘one whose nurture was that of Achilles’
son’. Note however that τεθραμμέναι,
as distinguished from τραφείς, expresses
the present result of the process.—So in
substance Paley, who with hesitation
defends the MS. Weil assumes a lacuna
after this verse. re@puypévac Hermann,
τεθραγμέναι Hartung, and see Wecklein’s
Appendix. There is a strong majority
against the Ms., but it will not easily be
improved. -

780—783. Cf. vv. 2, 62, 747, 1069.
This metaphor runs through the whole
play.

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ.

93

πολλαῖσι πληγαῖς ἄντλον οὐκ ἐδέξατο.
στέγει δὲ πύργος, καὶ πύλας φερεγγύοις
ἐφραξάμεσθα μονομάχοισι προστάταις.
καλῶς ἔχει τὰ πλεῖστ᾽ ἐν ἐξ πυλώμασιν᾽

τὰς δ᾽ ἑβδόμας ὁ σεμνὸς ἑβδομαγέτας

785

ἄναξ ᾿Απόλλων εἵλετ᾽, Οἰδίπου γένει
κραίνων παλαιὰς Λαΐου δυσβουλίας.

783. ἐφραξάμεθα.

785. ἑβδομαγέτας. Apollo, as having
been born on the seventh day of the
month (Hes. Of. 770), was called éBdo-
μαγένης. Here this title appears, as Paley
says, ‘a little changed’, so as to have the
meaning ‘seventh leader’. We have in
fact an example of that curious verbal
ingenuity. which plays so marked a part
in the religious and prophetic mysteries
of Aeschylus.—7 γὰρ ἑβδόμη, φησί, πύλη,
ἵνα τὰ μαντεύματα τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος τὰ
Aaty δοθέντα τέλος λάβῃ. ἑβδόμῃ γὰρ
éyerv}0n ᾿Απόλλων. Schol. This note
seems to point to some connexion be-
tween the number seven and the pro-
phecy of Apollo to Laius, which may
well have been found in the legends,
though it is not implied in the text.
This is one of the passages which with-
out the epic traditions are probably but
half intelligible to us,

786. Aero took to himself, i.e. he
made this gate, for the sin of Laius, an
exception from our triumph, while he at
the same time protected it.

787. κραίνων δυσβονλίαθ accom plish-
ing his perversity, i.e. punishing it by its
effects. See vv. 731—42.

788—816. <A tract of some length
might be filled with the criticisms of this
passage. From 789 to 806 there is
scarcely a verse which has not been ex-
cised, displaced, and corrected in various
ways. (See Wecklein’s Appendix.) I
will state briefly the conclusions which
appear to me probable. It is scarcely
credible that the whole, including the
repetition in v. 789 and v. 805, can be

correct as it stands. Now it will be ob-
served, that these two similar lines are
the commencement of two equivalent
passages; the dialogue 789—798 is simply
an expansion in lively dramatic form of
the couplet 805—6. Further, the speech
intervening between the dialogue and
the couplet (799—8o04) is little more than
a translation into iambic verse of a pas-
sage from the previous chorus vv. 714-
720. The natural inferences seem to be,
(1) that these equivalent passages are in
fact alternatives, the dialogue and followe
ing speech (789—804) being a substitute
for the couplet (805—6); (2) that this
substitute was not written by Aeschylus
himself, but by some one who, having a
motive for re-modelling the work, was
sufficiently scrupulous to follow the author
as closely as possible. The motive can

also be divined. That the messenger

should make his announcement in a
simple and solemn fashion, and that the
Chorus should then return at once to
their lyric function, is not inconsistent
with dramatic art in the stage to which
this play belongs, and from 4 poetical
point of view is more than defensible.
But a reader or an audience familiar with
the later stage would certainly hold that
to treat the situation thus is unnatural
and wastes a dramatic opportunity. By
such a critic and probably for such an
audience I conceive wv. 789—804 to have

been written. This view, which is based

upon many previous suggestions though
perhaps not before just so stated, will of
course essentially modify the treatment

94 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

τί δ᾽ ἐστὶ πρᾶγμα νεόκοτον πόλει πλέον ;

πόλις σέσωσται᾽ βασιλέως δ᾽ ὁμόσποροι---
[ἄνδρες τεθνᾶσιν ἐκ χειρῶν αὐτομάτων.
tives; τί δ᾽ εἶπας; παραφρονῶ φόβῳ λόγου.
φρονοῦσα νῦν ἄκουσον, Οἰδίπου τόκος----

οἱ ᾿γὼ τάλαινα, μάντις εἰμὶ τῶν κακῶν.

οὐδ᾽ ἀμφιλέκτως μήν' κατεσποδημένοι---

790

793: οἷ ἐγὼ.

of the interpolated passage. The attempt
to correct it into the form of Aeschylus
has produced hopeless disagreement; but
we may avoid almost all the difficulty if
‘we see in it the work of an unknown
writer who wished to be at once Aeschy-
lean and smart.

. From the same hand, I believe, though
this .is a distinct question, come the
anapaests 807-816. Twice in these few
lines is broken the rule deduced from
the classical poets by Bentley, that in
this metre there is no division of lines,
the whole being metrically continuous
‘(synaphea): in 809—10 ῥύεσθξ πότερον,
and again in 811—12 d8vodaluovas ἁτέκ-
yous (for if these lines are scanned con-
tinuously we have a concurrence of four
short syllables). The rhythm of 811:
again is not that of Aeschylus, and few
or none suppose it to have been written
by him as it is. Other just objections
which have been made to the style are
given in the notes. The reader must
consider whether all this is to be mended
by patching half the lines, or whether
the present conclusion is simpler, that
these anapaests are a moderately suc-
cessful ‘copy’ by an imitator who had
not studied Aeschylus with the minute-
ness of Bentley.

I believe, therefore, that this scene
would be restored approximately at least
to its original form by omitting ov. 789—
So4 and vv. 807—816. Judged by the
standard of realistic and sensational
drama, such a scene is doubtless wanting

in just those points which the insertions
are intended to supply. Whether Aeschy-
lus would have allowed the improvement
may well be doubted, and upon this some
remarks will be found in the /strodsc-
ton.

789. βασιλέως δ᾽ ὁμόσποροι (waives) :
the king's (Οεαέῤει»᾽) twin —. The sen-
tence here commenced is three times in-
terrupted, and is in fact never finished.
Here the incompleteness being obvious
the supposed gap has been filléd by the
semblance of a verse (790), developed
probably out of a note. For another in-
stance see Eur. “22:4. 942-—-3. Vu. 792
and 794 were wrongly supposed to be
complete.

790 omitted by Butler. Porson cor-
rected it into ἅνδρες reOvaow ἐκ χερῶν
αὐτοκτόνων, omitting v. 789: but apart
from other objections there is no intel-
ligible motive for the assumed interpo-
lation of v. 789.—adroxrévwr m.

792. τόκος. This must be here taken
as a generic term, offspring, not ‘an in-
dividual child: γόνος has the same two
meanings, and -roxos is offspring (plural)
both in Homer and in Euripides, though
not apparently elsewhere so used of
human beings.—réxw (and κατεσποδημένω
in wv. 794) Dindorf.

794. Nay, but, in plain words, they have
so mauled cach other—. οὐδ᾽ ἀμφιλέκτως
piv: this, like φρονοῦσα νῦν ἄκουσον in
Ὁ. 792, is an expression of impatience
at the interruption of the Chorus, and is
suggested by the words μάντι elpl—* You

4.

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

ΧΟ.

ἐκεῖθι κεῖσθον ;---ῇἊαρέα δ᾽ οὖν ὅμως φράσον.-.----

95
795

ef > ~ 4 ᾽ 9 ww
οὕτως ἀδελφαῖς χερσὶν ἠναίροντ᾽ ἄγαν ;---
οὕτως ὁ δαίμων κοινὸς ἦν ἀμφοῖν dpa;

may dispense with divination, if you will
listen to the plain facts’; and he reinforces
his remark by using a term very plain,
not to say coarse, for the solemnity of
the occasion. σποδεῖν, as the Lexicon
‘will show, is‘a strong word of the vulgar
vocabulary, frequent in comedy, but in
dignified poetry rare. Aeschylus has it
-in Ag. 675 στρατοῦ σποδουμένου of a navy
in astorm; Euripides twice, of Hippo-
lytus dragged by his horses (2712. 1238),
.and of a man overwhelmed by a hail of
missiles (4Andr. 1129), and all these pas-
-Sages are put, like the present, in the
-mouth of a ‘common person telling an
exciting story. The still stronger xara-
σποδεῖν is cited only from Aristophanes,
Thesm. 860.

705. ἐκεῖθι κεῖσθον; Are they there, on
the ground? She points with horror in
the direction of the gate, still avoiding
by a euphemism the word ‘dead’.—It is
‘noticeable that the form ἐκεῖθι is unique
‘in the extant Attic tragedy. It meay be
a slip of the writer, though it could not
of course be cited as proof in the question
of authorship. There is no reason to
suspect the verse. The slight irregularity
of τόκος... κατεσποδημένοι.. κεῖσθον is quite
natural in such a broken dialogue.—The
Schol. apparently assumes a reading κἦλ-
Gow (els τοσοῦτον ἦλθον ὥστε φονευθῆναι τὸν
βασιλέα), Did they indeed come to that?:
-this use of ἐκεῖθι would be even more
:peculiar than the other: but it seems
-probable that κῆλθον is an ancient con-
<jecture. based on a mistaken supposition
‘that ἐκεῖθι is naturally equivalent to
. éxeice.

796. The maidens here speak two
(if not three) verses without a reply from
-the soldier. This irregularity is the chief
ground on which this passage has been
-supposed to require re-arrangement. But
surely it has an obvious explanation.

-and sometimes not implied at .all.

The soldier has now made three efforts
to tell his story and has been three times
stopped. He has already betrayed his
impatience. Nothing can be more natu-
ral than that he should be slow to begin
again, and should not do so till the ques-
tioners have come to the truth, and in fact
have answered themselves. After v.795 he
either does not answer at all, or answers
only by a gesture; whereupon another of
the maidens repeats the question. The Ms.
is probably right in showing a change of
speakers ; it is more natural to suppose
that vv. 788, 791, 793, 795 and 796 are
all spoken by different members of the
Chorus, and even that 791, 793 and 795

are divided.—valpowro were they foully

used. This word is not a synonym for
ἔθανον (note the imperfect tense) but,

like κατεσποδημένοι, implies the horrible-
ness of the act, though of course with
a different sentiment: ὀναίρειν is pro-
perly ‘to use with destructive violence’,
the notion of .killing being secondary,
Cf.
Hom. Od. 19. 263, μηκέτι νῦν χρόα καλὸν
évaipeo. It is used (as here, with an
invidious effect) in Soph. O. C. 842
πόλις évalperat σθένει, of a brutal outrage
offered to the majesty of the state, and
in id. Phil, 946 ἐναίρων νεκρὸν ἣ καπνοῦ
σκιάν, id. frag. 649 τοὺς εὐγενεῖς pire?
“Apns évalpew. Most frequently it is used
of the slaying of wild beasts or monsters,

In the iambics of tragedy it is very rare.

«-ὀἀδελφαῖς.. ἄγαν together: ‘hands too
much alike’ (see Lex. 5. vu. ddedgds), €.¢,

‘fatally equal’, with allusion at the same
time .to the narrower meaning of the
word. The corrections of ἄγαν (as ἅμα)
depend on the assumption that it belongs

to the verb.—The form in which the

question is repeated (v. 797) suggests that

. ἀδελφαὶ χεῖρες. was a term of chiromancy.

797. ὁ ϑαίμων the fate or fortune of

96
ΑΓ.

ΑΙΣΧΥΛΟΥ

αὐτὸς 8 ἀναλοῖ δῆτα δύσποτμον γένος.

τοιαῦτα “χαίρειν καὶ δακρύεσθαι πάρα;

f
πόλιν μὲν εὖ πράσσουσαν, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπιστάται,

δισσὼ στρατηγώ, διέλαχον σφυρηλάτῳ
Σκύθη σιδήρῳ κτημάτων παμπησίαν.

w

ἕξουσι δ᾽ ἣν λάβωσιν ἐν ταφῇ χθονὸς
‘\ 9 x AN / ,
πατρὸς κατ᾽ εὐχὰς δυσπότμους φορούμενοι.

the family, which overtook them both at
once. This δαίμων is in a sense a per-
sonification of the family itself and of its
self-destructive spirit. Hence the man-
ner of expression in ψ. 798.—In the Ms.
the speech of the soldier is marked as
commencing at v. 798. This seems right,
in which case v. 797 must be punctuated
as a third question.

799. τοιαῦτα: the accusative depends
loosely upon χαίρειν καὶ δακρύεσθαι. Cf.
Eur. Hipp. 1340 τοὺς εὐσεβεῖς θεοὶ θνή-
'σκοντας οὐ χαίρουσιν.---ϑακρύεσθαι a re-
flexive form, strictly ‘to be-tear oneself’.
This form seems to be unique, though
the perfect δεδάκρυμαι 7 am tn tears is
found elsewhere. κλαίομαι (see v. 904)
is similar, but not precisely.

800. of δ᾽ émordrac...du&ayov: a
variation for τοὺς δ᾽ ἐπιστάτας διαλα-
χόντας, which would be required by
strict parallelism of construction : see on
Ψ. 578.

803. ἕξουσι δ᾽ ἣν λάβωσιν ἐν ταφῇ
χθονὸς they will have of land whatever
they shall have received in burial. χθονός
- isa partitive genitive depending on ἣν (ὦ)
AdBwow ἐν ταφῇ considered as a sub-
Stantive: cf. Soph. 222. 653 φίλοισί τε
ξυνοῦσαν...καὶ τέκνων ὅσων ἐμοὶ δύσνοια
μὴ πάρεστι with such of my children as
bear me not ill-will (on which ‘see the
editor’s note to Eur. Med. 12).---χθόνα
Brunck, followed by many editors. But
the contrast, which here as in vw 717
is Clearly intended, between the large
-kingdom they expected and the little
grave they obtained, requires the genitive
for its full expression. The form is at
most peculiar (if ὅσην stood for ἦν we

-form of it.

could not say as muchas this) and should
scarcely excite surprise in a passage of
such manifold peculiarity.

804. κατ᾽ εὐχὰς cf. v. 696.—dopov-
μενοι. ‘' Videri potest hoc intelligendum
de exsequiis” (Hermann); and this, dos7e
to the grave, seems to be the only inter-
pretation which the context fairly ad-
mits. But, if this be meant, we have
another and most remarkable peculiarity

-of diction, for no authority is produced
for φορεῖν or even φορά in this sense,

though éxgopd is of course regularly so

‘used.— The metaphor from a violent

storm, suggested by Paley and others as
an alternative, is so irrelevant that it-can
scarcely be attributed either to Aeschylus
or a sensible imitator.—Of the corrections
κληρούμενοι (Weil) alone gives a good
sense, receiving their shares of the hert-
tage; but it is a violent change. Possibly
μορούμενοι might be used in the same

“sense (see the Lex. 5. v. μείρομαι, μεμόρη-

μαι, and note on αἰνομόροις v. 887): it
would be a curious form, but scarcely
more so than δακρύεσθαι (v. 799); for

‘the confusion of ¢ and p» see wv, 822.

On reviewing this passage (789—804),
it will appear that the details confirm the
conclusion drawn above from the general
The number, and still more
the nature, of its peculiarities forbid the
attempt to correct them by the standard
of Aeschylus. Even the general vocabu-
lary is exceptional (wapadporG, ἀμφιλέκ-
τως, ἀναλόω, παμπησία are all noticeable
words), and the metre not less so; see

the frequent resolved feet in vv. 789, 791,

795, 801, and the verse practically without
a caesura, 794. Not one of the points

- ENTA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ.

πόλις σέσωσται' βασιλέοιν δ᾽ ὁμοσπόροιν

97
805

πέπωκεν αἷμα γαῖ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων φόνῳ.

ΧΟ.

ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ καὶ πολιοῦχοι

δαίμονες, of δὴ Κάδμου πύργους

τούσδε ῥύεσθε,

πότερον χαίρω κἀπολολύξω

πόλεως ἀσινεῖ σωτῆρι,

810

a \ \ ,

ἢ τοὺς poyepovs καὶ δυσδαΐμονας
3 7 , /
ατέκνους κλαύσω πολεμάρχους ;

806. γᾶν.

noted, not even perhaps φορούμενοι,
would prove anything by itself; collec-
tively, they will, I think, appear decisive
to any one who will endeavour to make a
parallel collection from any equal number
of lines taken elsewhere. But the work
is elaborate and not unskilful, and must
be, I should suppose, scarcely less ancient
than the play itself. A forgery, in any
case, it cannot be called; for the re-
tention of the couplet 805—806 indicates
that the substituted passage was in the
first instance frankly offered for what it
is. A forger would have finished his
work by expelling the original.

806. ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων φόνῳ: the prepo-
sition and case depend in sense upon the
substantive (dy mutual slaughter); cf. v.
IOI5.-

807. πολιοῦχοι Pauw. The copyist
has inadvertently substituted a more
familiar form.

808. of δὴ : who do indeed (as we now
see) protect.

809. τούσδε ῥύεσθέ. The original
ῥύεσθαι of the ms. (corrected by the
writer himself) must apparently have
been merely a common slip of the pen,
due to the similar sound of a and e.
The infinitive has no construction. By
the strict rule deduced from the tra-
gedians a long syllable is required, as this
anapaestic metre does not allow ‘com-
mon’ syllables at the division of the
verses. We may of course suppose (with
Dindorf) that something is lost after

V. 4.

807. πολισσοῦχοι.

809. ῥύεσθαι corr. to ῥύεσθε.

ῥύεσθε (¢.2. Σπαρτῶν τε πόλιν), or that
the text is otherwise corrupt. But it has
not apparently been observed that we
have another, less obvious but still inad-
missible flaw of metre in 812, as well as
the unrhythmical verse 811. My own
opinion, as given above, is that, instead
of assuming an unusual extent of cor-
ruption in this place, we should accept
the passage as it stands for a fairly success-
ful imitation. Athens must have con-
tained many men capable of writing fair
verse, and also quite capable of ignoring a
delicate observance such as the Syzaphea.

810. ἐπολολύξω aorist subj. am J
to raise the joyous triumph-shout ?

811. 20 the harmless saviour of our
state, 1.6. to (in honour of) Zeus Soter,
who saves our city harmless, cf. wv. 807.
The transference of the epithet downs
from the effect to the agent, though not
at all uncommon in some styles, ¢.g.
Elizabethan English, is not easy to
parallel in Greek. It could easily be
mended by reading ἀσινής (note the
initial σ οὗ. σωτῆρι) agreeing with the
subject (πόλεως ἀσινὴς εὐσοίᾳ Ritschl).
If this passage is not Aeschylean we have
no standard to correct by; it will scarcely
be contended that no educated Greek
can have written the line as it stands.
Of the proposed restorations, that of
Hermann, σωτῆρι πόλεως ἀσινείᾳ, is a fair
specimen.

813. ἀτέκνους : ἐπὶ κακῷ rexOdvras, 7
τοὺς μὴ τεκνοποιήσαντας schol. With

7

98 AIZXYAOY
ot δῆτ᾽ ὀρθῶς κατ᾽ ἐπωνυμίαν .
καὶ πολυνεικεῖς 815
ὥλοντ᾽ ἀσεβεῖ διανοίᾳ.
ὦ μέλαινα καὶ τελεία στρ.

γένεος Οἰδίπου τ᾽ apa,

the first interpretation cf. ἄστολος in
vw. 842. Paley, who prefers the second
interpretation, notes as an objection to it
that Polynices (according to Pindar O/.
11. 38) did leave a son, Thersander. This
tradition, however, the writer may have
ignored, as the whole play ignores it.
Still childless is not the expression that
would be expected in this place, and I
think the first interpretation nearer the
mark. The writer imitates such phrases
as τέκνα drexva, βίος ἄβιος etc., but not, it
may be thought, very happily. Possibly
he intends to glance at the parentage of
the brothers. Note that ἀτέκνους is in
either case a predicate, to be taken closely
with κλαύσω---ατὲ I to weep for the mis-
fortune of their birth?, or that in them
their line ends ?—On the metre see above
v. 809.

814—815. Several corrections have
been proposed in order to bring in a
separate allusion to the name Léeacles,
e.g. Hermann’s σύν τ᾽ εὐκλείᾳ καὶ πολυ-

γεικεῖς. But the allusion to Zteocls is
conveyed in the words ὀρθῶς κατ᾽

ἐπωνυμίαν. The writer interprets Zzeocles
by érews κλῃζόμενος ‘truly called’; and
represents the two names of the brothers
as forming ‘ogether a symbol of their fate;
the name Πολυνείκης foreshowing their
common character and destiny, the name
᾿Ετεόκλης declaring and emphasizing this
significance. That this is the meaning is
clearly shown by the union of the plural
πολυνεικεῖς with the singular ἐπωνυμίαν.
Each brother was πολυνεικής, and each
perished ἐτεῶς κατ᾽ ἐπωνυμίαν, in ac-
cordance with that name. The writer
would improve upon the previous refer-
ences to the significance of Polynices’
name as describing his character. The

conception is not very neat, but it can-
not be mended by verbal correction.—
ἐτεῶς (for ὀρθῶς) Halm, perhaps rightly :
ὀρθῶς may be an _ interpretation.—The
junction of πολυνεικεῖς to ὀρθῶς κατ᾽
ἐπωνυμίαν by καὶ is formally irregular,
but not incorrect; πολυνεικεῖς, as a
predicate, is in effect adverbial and
equivalent to πολυνεικείᾳ. But by Eng-
lish usage no conjunction is required or
even admissible—¢hey perished in quarrel,
truly fulfilling the fatal name.

816. ἀσεβεῖ διανοίᾳ dy mutual un-

natural hate; literally ‘by unnatural

feeling towards each other’. ἀσεβής has
the sense of the Latin ¢mpius ‘contrary
to natural affection’. The use of διάνοια
is thoroughly Aeschylean; it always
signifies the feeling of one person towards
another, dia- meaning between, and νοεῖν
feeling or disposition, as in εὔνους, εὔνοια.
So in ἔπι. 985 χάρματα δ᾽ ἀντιδιδοῖεν
κοινοφιλεῖ διανοίᾳ, 25. 1013 εἴη δ᾽ ἀγα-
θῶν ἀγαθὴ διάνοια πολίταις, Ag. 788 τὰ
δοκοῦντ᾽ εὔφρονος ἐκ διανοίας ὑδαρεῖ σαίνειν
φιλότητι, Supp. 115 διάνοιαν μαινόλιν (the
passion of the sons of Aegyptus for the
Danaides). This, if these lines are an
imitation, seems the most successful
touch; it may, of course, have been
borrowed from some other work.

817. τελεία: the two ideas, ‘working
its fulfilment’ and ‘ending the lineage’,
are both suggested.

818. γένεος Οἰδίπον τε upon the race
and Oedipus, i.e. upon the race of Oedi-
pus, but with the added suggestion that
in his posterity Oedipus has extinguished
himself.

819. καρδίᾳ, dative singular: for this
dative ‘of the part affected’ see v. 879;
it may be explained either as a sort of

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

κακόν pe καρδίᾳ τι περιπίτνει κρύος.
ἔτευξα τύμβῳ μέλος

Θυιάς, αἱματοσταγεῖς

νεκροὺς κλύουσα δυσμόρως

θανόντας" ἦ δύσορνις ἅ-

δε ξυναυλία δορός.

ἐξέπραξεν, οὐδ᾽ ἀπεῖπεν

πατρόθεν εὐκταία φάτις"

βουλαὶ δ᾽ ἄπιστοι, Λαι᾽, οὐ διήρκεσαν
μέριμνα δ᾽ ἀμφὶ πτόλιν᾽

820

825

819. τ. 822. δυσφόρως. 817: λαΐου.

locative or as a variety of the so-called
dative ‘commodi et incommodi’,—xap-
δίαν recc., according to the more usual
construction.

820. ἔτενξα τύμβῳ μέλος Ouids, 7 was
a Bacchant framing her song to a grave,
when I heard ec., i.e. my rapture (at our
deliverance) was turned into a strain of
mourning. The point lies in the incon-
gruity of the ideas τύμβῳ μέλος and
Θυιάς, the song of the inspired Bacchant
naturally expressing the utmost intensity
of enthusiastic delight. See the next
note. It is perhaps not rash to conjecture
that the phrase, or something like it, was
proverbial.—The paraphrase of the Schol.
is ἐπιτυμβίδιον θρῆνον Erevéa, ws Ouds:
this however does not imply that he
found ws in the text, and if the above
interpretation be correct, it should not
be inserted. The interpretation of the
Schol. is indeed scarcely intelligible; it
was not the function of a Ouds to sing at
a grave.

823. ἧ δύσορνις.. δορός. Οἱ inaus-
picious symphony of war! They pursue
the same idea as in the previous lines, the
incongruity of the feelings excited by the
fatal victory. The ξυναυλία δορός (mar-
tial symphony) proper to the occasion
would have been a song of triumph;
‘but the death of the princes converts
this joy to an inauspicious dirge. For
the strong and even superstitious feelings

of the Greeks on such matters see 4g.
640 εὔφημον ἦμαρ ov πρέπει κακαγγέλῳ
γλώσσῃ μιαίνειν " χωρὶς ἡ τιμὴ θεῶν, and
notes there. Sopds: the common poetic
symbol of war.—It is usual to refer ξυ-
vaudla δορός to the combat of the brothers,
called ξυναυλία merely by metaphor. But
it is surely unnatural to make no con-
nexion between the two references to
music in vv. 820 and 824, especially as
ξυναυλία (see Lex. 5. v.) was actually used
of the performance of dirges. And note
ade, which shows that ξυναυλία refers to
what is #ow being done.

825. She hath finished her work, she
hath not wearted, the Sentence invoked by
a father’s voice.

827—829. The general sense is ‘the
disobedient attempt of Laius to prolong
his race has been punished and defeated,
as was foretold by divine prophecy, which
never fails’,—dmoror disobedient or ἐμ.
Redel, from πείθεσθαι ; for the form see
on ἐκτός v. 251.—8ujpkecay has been
supposed—with the MS. reading Aatou—
to mean ‘worked their effect’, literally
‘lasted out’ or ‘prevailed’. But though
prevailed might be capable of this sense,
to use it so here involves an extraordi-
nary confusion of ideas. The disobedient
intention of Laius did not ‘prevail’, in
the natural sense of the expression; on
the contrary, it was defeated.—pépipva
δ᾽ ἀμφὶ πτόλιν. The Scholl. give a

7- 2

486069 ᾿

100 AIZXYAOY

θέσφατ᾽ οὐκ ἀμβλύνεται.
ΑΝ ’ AN >
ἐὼ πολύστονοι, TCO εἰρ-

830

γάσασθ᾽ ἄπιστον᾽ ἦλθε 8 αἱ-

paraphrase in two imperfect forms: ἡ δὲ
φροντίς, ἣν ἔσχεν ὁ Adios περὶ τὴν μίξιν
(see v. 735), καὶ τὰ θεσπίσματα παρὰ τοῦ
θεοῦ καὶ τῆς πόλεως, οὐκ ἀμβλύνεται, φη-
σίν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίον ὀξέως τελεῖται,
and ἡ δὲ φροντίς, ἣν ἔσχεν ὁ Λάιος περὶ
τῆς πόλεως, καὶ τὰ θεσπίσματα παρὰ τοῦ
θεοῦ, οὐκ ἀμβλύνεται κτλ. From this, even
if it were sense in itself, we could not
infer that καὶ θέσφατ᾽ (adopted by some
editors, with ws Ouds in v. 821) was in
the text: the paraphrase seems to be
merely a desperate attempt to supply a
verb to μέριμνα from the following clause.
But the μέριμνα ἀμφὶ πτόλιν, or public
care, is the intention of Laius, which
seemed for a time successful, to gratify
himself in spite of Apollo, and yet save
the city from the woes denounced (see
v. 734), by exposing his offspring, Oedi-
pus. We have a simple meaning without
any real change by reading as in the text:
counsels of disobedience, Laius, and fore-
thought for thy country prevailed not. The
apostrophe in the vocative suits v. 830.
—S2, not re, because there is an antithe-
sis between βουλαὶ (μὲν) ἄπιστοι, μέριμνα
δ᾽ ἀμφὶ πτόλιν : the full meaning is ‘dis-
obedience did not prevail, for all thy care
of the state’.—épiuya in the sense of
design or tntention occurs more than once
in Pindar, eg. Ol. 1. 104 θεὸς ἐπίτροπος
ἐὼν τεαῖσι μήδεται, ‘Iépwv, μερίμναισι,
which illustrates closely by contrast the
meaning supposed here; heaven watches
over the ‘designs’ of Hiero, but crossed
those of Laius. Here we have no pos-
sessive (σαὶ βουλαὶ), which would weaken
the effect; the case of Laius is put as
an example of universal law.—fovAal δ᾽
ἄπιστον Λαΐον διήνυσαν μέριμναν ἀμφὶ πτό-
Aw Hartung. No other suggestion is
cited by Wecklein.

829. Zhe word af God doth not tire,
but subdues all hindrance to its accom-

plishment: cf. οὐδ᾽ ἀπεῖπεν in v. 825.
ἀμβλύς, ἀμβλύνω, ἀπαμβλύνω have fre-
quently this slightly extended sense οὗ
‘losing vigour’. ἀμβλύς is so used with
pathetic effect in Zum. 238, where
Orestes, after his long expiatory wander-
ings, describes himself as no longer in
the freshness of his guilt, ἀλλ᾽ ἀμβλὺν
ἤδη.

830. τόδ᾽ εἰργάσασθ᾽ ἄπιστον : not jc
did this act of disobedience; for (1) there
is nothing in the context to which τόδε
can be referred, and (2) the use of
ἄπιστοι (v. 827) does not warrant a similar
use of the neuter ἄπιστον: the one is, the
other is not, analogous to the verb πεί-
θομαι; (3) the antithetic clause which
follows, and especially the emphatic ov
λόγῳ, points strongly to the passive
meaning of ἄπιστον, not believed. 1 prefer
therefore to translate by ye made rhis
(truth) to be discredited, ‘made it not be-
lieved’, taking ἄπιστον as a predicate and
ἐργάζεσθαι in the sense of ‘render’, re-
stricted in classical prose to the com-
pound ἀπεργάζεσθαι. Examples of this
use are cited by Liddell and Scott from
Aelian and Lucian, and it has already
been noticed (see on vw. 621) that the
peculiar usages of late prose frequently il-
lustrate those of ancient poetry. When a
literary standard begins to fail, ancient
irregularity revives, partly by inadvertence,
partly by the search for new effects. τόδε
will then be the λόγος or doctrine (θέσφατ᾽
οὐκ ἀμβλύνεται), discredited for the time
by the defiance of Laius and his house;
but for all that, the lamentable woe did
come in stern reality—ob λόγῳ (ἀλλ᾽
ἔργῳ) : no longer in the shape of a doc-
trine that might be disputed, but in
actual punishment. Note δὲ as a strong
adversative, in regular prose ἀλλά,

833. The procession bearing the bodies
of the brothers, with the sisters Antigone

ETTTA ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

ακτὰ πήματ᾽ οὐ λόγῳ.

IO!

τάδ᾽ αὐτόδηλα, προῦπτος ἀγγέλου λόγος"
διπλαῖν μερίμναιν διδυμανορέα

ῇ 5 9 / ’ ,
Kak avtodova, δίμοιρα τέ-
λεια ἡ τὰ πάθη---τί φῶ;

835

τί & ἄλλο γ᾽ ἢ πόνοι πόνων

δόμων ἐφέστιοι ;

ἀλλὰ γόων, ὦ φίλαι, κατ᾽ οὖρον

ἐρέσσετ᾽ ἀμφὶ κρατὶ πόμπιμον χεροῖν

840

πίτυλον, ὃς αἰὲν δι’ ᾿Αχέροντ᾽ ἀμείβεται,

833. πρέτος.

and Jsmene as mourners, is seen ap-

proaching.—-mpotrros ἀγγέλον λόγος

what was told by the messenger is before
' our eyes. προῦπτος m’.

834—836. The metre being doubtful,
it is impossible to restore these lines with
certainty. Hermann, assuming them to
be iambics, writes διπλαῖ μέριμναι, δίδυμ᾽
ἀγανόρεα κακά | αὐτοφόνα, δίμορα, τέλεα
τάδε πάθη" τί φῶ; In the second line
δίμορα τέλε᾽, dra (dual), πάθη is nearer,
and avoids the objectionable τάδε. Ina
metre so irregular we cannot say that the
spondee dra is inadmissible. The geni-
tive pepluvaw (the original reading of M
according to Vitelli, μερίμναις Hermann)
is quite defensible, depending on κακά as
a description or equivalent, but the nomi-
native is perhaps more natural.—The
speakers vainly seek words to express the
energy of their feelings.

837-8. May I not call them ‘the crown-
ingsoxrows ofan unhappy home ?’: literally,
‘Nay, what else are they but—?’. 'πόνοι
πόνων, a sort of poetical superlative: 86-
pov possessive: ἐφέστιοι ‘domestic’.—It
seems probable that these words, πόνοι...
ἐφέστιοι, were a known phrase, perhaps a
quotation.

839—846. But ΟἹ let your sighs be the
breest, and the beating of your hands upon
your brows that plash of oars, which ts ever
passing over Acheron: and speed the sad
misston of that dark-sailed ship, whereon

839. γόον. οὔρων.

Apollo sets not his foot nor sunlight falls,
to the bourn of all, to the unseen shore.
γόων recc. οὖρον m’. The construction
of these exquisitely beautiful verses per-
mits only a very loose translation into
English. The accusatives πίτυλον and
Gewplda both depend upon ἐρέσσετε, the
first as a quasi-cognate accusative, the
second as the direct object. (With the
common punctuation ἀμείβεται τὰν xri.,
making θεωρίδα depend on ἀμείβεται, it
is necessary either to correct ἀμείβεται,
or to assume for ἀμείβεσθαι the unknown
sense of comvoy, accompany. Paley cites
for this προστέλλεσθαι v. 402 and προ-
πέμπεσθαι or ἀποπέμπεσθαι Pers. 141:
but these are both reflexives, ‘to send
forth for or from oneself’.)\—yéev κατ᾽
οὖρον literally ‘with a favouring wind of
sighs’, cf. vw 677. ---ἐρέσσετε.. πίτυλον :
the gesture of lamentation (rapid blows
of the hands on the head and breast,
called xoupés from κόπτεσθαι to beat one-
self) is metaphorically compared to the
beating of oars. πόμπιμον πίτυλον liter-
ally ‘speeding beat’. ἀμφὶ κρατὶ depends
upon πίτυλον.---τὰν ἄστολον ... ἀνάλιον.
The ship which carries the dead over the
river of the lower world is described by
contrast with the sacred ship (@ewpls), with
its white sails, which annually conveyed
from Athens to Delos a religious em-
bassy (θεωρία) in honour of Apollo, the
god of light and gladness. The contrast

102 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

Ἁ bd ,
Tay ἄστολον μελαγκροκον

ναύστολον θεωρίδα,
τῶν ἀστιβῆ ᾿Απόλλω-
νι, τὰν ἀνάλιον,

845

πάνδοκον εἰς ἀφανῆ τε χέρσον.

ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἥἧἥκουσ᾽ aid ἐπὶ πρᾶγος

πικρὸν ᾿Αντιγόνη τ᾽ ἠδ᾽ Ἰσμήνη,

θρῆνον ἀδελφοῖν' οὐκ ἀμφιβόλως

οἶμαί σφ᾽ ἐρατῶν ἐκ βαθυκόλπων 850

-842.

is peculiarly effective, because the associ-
ation of Apollo with death was so repug-
nant to religious feeling, that during this
mission the Athenians would not execute
a capital sentence—a usage rendered illus-
trious by the case of Socrates, who was
respited on this ground.—dorodov: a
correction in the later scholl. (ἢ ἄστολον καὶ
κακῶς ἐσταλμένην), accepted by Stanley
and others and, as it seems to me, certain.
ἄστολον is opposed to ναύστολον, or rather
to the final part of it; as ἄστολος στολή,
according to the common use of nega-
tive adjectives, would mean ‘an unhappy
or ill-omened mission’, so ἄστολον γναύστο-
λον Gewplda is ‘an ill-omened mission-
ship’;. the negative marks that the thing
here called ναύστολος θεωρίς is without
some qualities of the thing commonly so
called and has the opposite qualities. The
ἄστονον of the Ms. is probably ancient,
for it seems to have been the text of the
scholl. so far as can be made out from the
confused and corrupt paraphrase. λέγει
δὲ (ἄστονον ἢ) ὅτι ταύτην ὁδὸν θεωρ[ητ]ικὴν
ὥσπερ οἷδεν ὁ στόνος (Ὁ) τὴν ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Αχέ-
ροντα κτὰ. But it is exactly contrary to
the meaning and must be a mere slip of
the pen. The scholar Thomas Magister
(14th century) cites as from this passage
the words τὰν ναύστολον μελάγκροκον
θεωρίδα (Dindorf), but probably by a slip
of memory.—és αἰὲν.. ἀμείβεται. . αἱὲν
may be either ‘ perpetually ’, because death
and mourning are ever-present, or ‘on
each occasion’, because the κομμός is

ἄστονον.

always the sign of mourning. I prefer
the first.—Translated out of metaphor,
the passage means ‘ Mourn with the ac-
customed rite for the souls now passing
into Hades’.

849. ἀμφιβόλως : joined to Foew—am-
biguously, in two tones. The different
case of the two princes, one in the public
view an enemy, the other a patriot who
has died for his country, will not affect
the sisters, who will mourn them as
brothers (note the emphasis on ἀδελφοῖν
v. 849) without distinction. See on wv.
851.---οἶμαι / ¢row; the word implies not
doubt, as the English J ¢hivk usually
does, but confidence.

850. ἐρατῶν ἐκ βαθυκόλπων στηθέων
from their womanly bosoms yearning
with love. ‘The βαθὺς κόλπος, the fall of
dress over the belt or στρόφος, is a fixed
mark of women; cf. v. 857 ὁπόσαι orpé-
gov ἐσθῆσιν περιβάλλονται, 1.56. women:
βαθύκολπα is in no way an individual
epithet, but merely marks the fact of
sex. ἐρατῶν passionate, full of love; cf.
EpacOa fo dove, and for parallel forms in
-ros from verbs of passive form see on
vu. 231, 827. The ἔρως is their longing
for the dead, not of course sexual pas-
sion; see the Zex. s.v. ἔρως. I cannot
cite another clear example of épards in
this sense, but considering the rarity of the
word (it seems to occur in tragedy only
three times, see Eur. £/. 718, Her. 915),
it is not at all surprising that an excep-
tional use of it should be unique. The

"

ETTTA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ.

103

στηθέων ἥσειν ἄλγος ἐπάξιον.
ἡμᾶς δὲ δίκη πρότερον φήμης
τὸν δυσκέλαδόν θ᾽ ὕμνον ᾿Ἐιρινύος

ἠχεῖν ᾿Αίδα τ᾽

3 \ a> 5 ,
ἐχθρὸν tardy’ ἐπιμέλπειν.

854. ἰαχεῖν.

active use οὗ πιστός, an extremely com-
mon word, occurs in some half-a-dozen
places: ἄψαυστος Soph. O. 7: 969, κατα-
Anwros Eur. 2712. 1347, and others are
unique. (It should perhaps be observed
that these forms do not a/ways correspond
to an actual deponent verb, ¢.g. ἄψαυστος :
but in these cases the verb is generally one
describing a mutual relation, which is
both active and passive; that which ψαύει
also ψαύεται. καταληπτός (Hipp. 1. ¢.)
is not from καταλαβεῖν τινά but from xa-
ταλαβέσθαι τινός : cf. éxrés v. 251. Forms
like ἀνάλγητος cannot be here discussed :
they seem to have been produced for con-
venience on a false analogy, and before the
4th century are scarcely known.)—épares
is elsewhere passive, lovely, exciting love,
and is commonly taken so here. But
(1) it is the feeling of the sisters which is
here in question; an allusion to the
passion which they might inspire is surely
unsuitable: (2) double epithets in Aeschy-
lus are seldom both generic: usually one
of them (as βαθυκόλπων) is generic and
fixed, the other (as épardv) special to the
occasion and, in effect, a predicate; see
v. 629.

851. ἄλγος ἐπάξιον a grief proportioned
to desert. The word ἐπάξιον falls within
the negation of οὐκ : the negative governs
the whole description and applies to the
words in it which are placed for emphasis
first and last, ἀμφιβόλως and ἐπάξιον. In
justice, Eteocles deserved to be lamented,
Polynices did not, as the government of the
city presently declare. But the loving
and womanly hearts of Antigone and Is-
mene will ignore this rigorous distinction,
and the maidens naturally sympathize.
Afterwards, when authority has spoken

855
855. ἐχθρῶν.

on the other side, their sentiments are di-
vided (v. 1058). It will be seen that this
sentence strikes the key-note of this final
scene. For ἐπάξιος cf. Hum. 272 ἔχονθ᾽
ἕκαστον THs δίκης éwdtia cach punished
én proportion to his due.—I have seen
no explanation of vv. 849—851 which
satisfies the context and the words.
Paley refers οὐκ ἀμφιβόλως to the equal
grief of the two sisters, but the com-
parison of their feelings is irrelevant
to the play: ἐπάξιον he renders by
‘worthy of the occasion’, but this is not
adequate either to the word, which al-
ways means deserved (or deserving), or to
its emphatic position, which shows that
it is not a superfluous epithet.

852. πρότερον φήμης, defore the sound,
t.e. before their voices are heard.—Slen.
This expression deserves notice. Why
is it said to be proper or just that the
Chorus should take this precedence?
The explanation lies in the terms, ‘hymn
of the Avengeress* and ‘cruel triumph-
song of Death’. A ὕμνος or a παιάν,
being properly an expression of joy,
must not of course be interrupted by
anything δύσφημον, such as a dirge. It
is just, therefore, to ’Epwis and “Acéys
that their ritual should be performed
while it may. It isscarcely an objection,
that what the Chorus actually sing (vv.
860—940), though it concludes with ‘the
victorious shout of the fiends’ (v. 936)
and ‘the trophy of Ruin’ (Ὁ. 938), is in
effect itself a dirge. Their concern for
the interests of Hades is but the irony of
grief. Indeed they are careful to say so
(vo. 858, 859).

854. ἠχεῖν Elmsley. This word, writ-
ten in its Doric form ἀχέϊν, is frequently

104 AIZXYAOY

iw, δυσαδελφόταται πασῶν ὁπόσαι

στρόφον ἐσθῆσιν περιβάλλονται,

κλαίω, στένομαι, καὶ δόλος οὐδεὶς
\ 2 \ > A ,

μὴ ᾿᾽κ φρενὸς ὀρθῶς pe λιυγαίνειν.

ἰὼ ἰὼ δύσφρονες,

860

στρ. a.

φίλων ἄπειστοι καὶ κακῶν ἀτρύμονες,

ῇ - ey ἢ
πατρῴους δόμους ἕἑλόν-

f \ 9 A
τες péeNeot σὺν αλκᾷ.

861.

confused with ἰαχεῖν. Here iaxe’ is
not admitted by the metre; see on w.
812.

856. ὁπόσαι... περιβάλλονται 7.¢. all
women (not ‘maidens ’); the στρόφος is the
band below the breasts called.in familiar
language στρόφιον.

858. στένομαι a rare form, cited only
from the lyric verse of the tragedians.
Like the regular ὀλοφύρεσθαι and the
anomalous δακρύεσθαι (v. 799) it is a sort
of reflexive.—86A0g...Avyalvev. In con-
struction μὴ..«λιγαίνειν is a consecutive
sentence depending on οὐδεὶς δόλος ἐστί :
‘there is no deceit, such that I do not
wail from the heart’, i.¢. my laments
come purely and perfectly from the heart.—
These words are highly significant. The
maidens guard against the suspicion of
feigning more grief than they feel. Why?
For the reasons indicated in vv. 849—851
as above explained, and because the
irony of vw. 852—8s55, though natural
and forcible, is open to sinister interpre-
tation.

860—940. The music here appears
to have been divided between the full-
chorus, semi-chorus, single voices of the
chorus, Antigone, and Ismene (the two
last entering during the ‘paean’), but in
what parts the text does not determine.
The Ms., according to Vitelli (Wecklein),
marks the division as follows:—vv. 860,
864, 866, 878, 879 (before rerAaypévous),
880, 883, 895, 899, g10, the pavragraphus
marking a change of speaker; v. goo
(before δαϊκτὴρ) and 923, Chorus; 906

ἄπιστοι.

semi-chorus; 917, 933 ΖΡΙΘΗΦ) 929 An-
tigone; 895, 896, 898, marks erased:
860, 864 semi-chorus (added bym). This
division is obviously imperfect, and in
some points, particularly the exact parts
assigned to the sisters, not probable.
Several proposed arrangements are men-
tioned in Wecklein’s Appendix. Her-
mann and Dindorf distribute the whole
in semi-chorus and give no parts to the
sisters. As I think this at any rate unsatis-
factory, I have marked the parts of the sis-
ters according to the MS., as a reminder of
their presence, and otherwise have given
no division. Here and there the text itself
indicates that the speaker is changed, e.g.
when there is a reply, as at vv. 864, 873,
878, 917. The details must be left to
the consideration of the reader.

861. ἄπειστοι Hartung. Here (and
in v. 867) each part of the description
points particularly to one of the brothers.
The plurals are used according to the
habit of Greek poetry when the character
rather than the person is described.

φίλων ἄπειστοι obstinate against coun-
sel (Eteocles v. 699), κακῶν ἀτρύμονες
hard against misfortune (the exile Poly-
nices v. 620).

862. Who have won by force the home
of your fathers, t.e. the grave. σὺν ἀλκὰ
by force, or by war; σὺν instrumental as
in σὺν σιδάρῳ by the sword uv. 869.—alxug
m’, but the change is quite unnecessary.
See v. 485 βακχᾷ πρὸς ἀλκήν, and Cho.
236 ἀλκῇ πεποιθὼς δῶμ᾽ ἀνακτήσῃ πα-
τρός,

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

105

μέλεοι δῆθ᾽ οἱ μελέους θανάτους

ηὕροντο δόμων ἐπὶ λύμῃ.

,
id id δωμάτων

86s

9 a
ayrT. a.

ἐρειψίτοιχοι καὶ πικρὰς μοναρχίας

ἰδόντες, ἤδη διήλ.-
λαχθε σὺν σιδάρῳ.

κάρτα δ᾽ ἀληθῆ πατρὸς Οἰδιπόδα
πότνι’ ᾿Ἔρινὺς ἐπέκρανεν.
δι’ εὐωνύμων τετυμμένοι----

τετυμμένοι δῆθ᾽ ----

870

στρ. β΄.

ὁμοσπλάγχνων τε πλευρωμάτων,

aiat δαιμόνιοι,
αἰαῖ δ' ἀντιφόνων
θανάτων dpai.

875

διανταίαν λέγεις δόμοισι καὶ
σώμασιν πεπλαγμένους, ---ἐννέπω.---

867. ἐρριψίταχοι.
φόνῳ διεκρίθητε removed by Triclinius.

866. who brake (like a foe or a thief)
into your house (Polynices), who paid
dear for undivided royalty (Eteocles).
—mupas ἰδόντες : ‘found it bitter’; for
this use of πικρός see Ὁ, 717, Eur. Bacch.
357 ws ἂν λευσίμον δίκης τυχὼν θάνῃ πικ-
ρὰν βάκχευσιν ἐν Θήβαις ἰδών.

870. κάρτα ἀληθῆ ἐπέκρανεν Lath
made right true fulfilment. ἀληθῆ is
neuter plural, an adverbial accusative.
Paley criticizes the ‘ellipse of κατεύγ-
para’, and several corrections have been
proposed on the same assumption: xara-
pas δῆθ᾽ ἡ Wecklein, τὰ πρὸς Οἰδιπόδα
Francken. But surely πατρὸς depends
on "Epos.

872. The description or address is
resumed from wv. 869, as a Schol. ob-
serves. 80 εὐωνύμων τετυμμένοι (struck
through the left!) is an exclamation, the
bodies being now upon the scene and
the wounds visible. Another voice takes
upand repeats the exclamation. Naturally
in such a case there is no verb, which
would spoil the effect. Cf. v. 917.

869. After this verse a note οὐκ ἔτ᾽ ἐπὶ φιλίᾳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ

873. δῆτα. 878. λέγει σπληγὰν.

874. If the antistrophe (vv. 885—6)
is correct, something having the metre
“~~ ~~ is lost after v. 874 (Lachmann).
But the mistake seems to be in the anti-
strophe.

878. διανταίαν πεπλαγμένονς : for
the ellipse of πλαγὰν cf. Cho. 638 διαν-
ralay οὐτᾷ. The MS. incorporates an ex-
planatory note. (Elmsley.)—S8opoir καὶ
σώμασιν : for the dative see v. 819. The
same stroke destroys both them and their
house.—A€yeus, a poetical form of assent,
cf. Cho. 443 λέγεις πατρῷον μόρον, the
burial of my father was as thou sayest.
Note the curious echo of sound ala? δ᾽
ἀντι---δι avral αν.

879. ἐννέπω is the reply (Aye, even so!)
to Aéyes. There is nothing answering to
it metrically in v. 891, and Elmsley omits
it on this ground. But it is not very
easy to explain the interpolation, and
it seems not impossible that such an
ejaculation should be treated as no part
of the strophe.

106
3 ,
ἀναυδάτῳ μένει
ἀραίῳ τ᾽ ἐκ πατρὸς

Suyoppove πότμῳ.

διήκει δὲ καὶ πόλιν στόνος,"

στένουσι πύργοι,

στένει πέδον φίλανδρον, μένει

᾽ 3
δι ὧν αἰνομόροις,
δι᾿ ὧν νεῖκος ἔβα

885. μενεῖ, 886.

88ο. μένει... πότμῳ, causal ἀαίίνεϑβ.
ἀνανδάτῳ μένει horrible passion, ἐ.6. their
own ungovernable hatred, not Oedipus’
anger. avavdaros, ‘indescribable’, z.e.
‘inconceivable, impossible, unnatural’, a
synonym of d¢aros and of the Latin i#-
Jandus, nefandus. Thisis the only known
use of the word. Cf. Eur. Jon 783
ἄφατον ἄρρητον ἀγαύδατον λόγον, Soph. Az.
713 οὐδὲν ἀναύδατον φατίσαιμ᾽ ἄν nothing
seems inconceivable, Of the active sense
speechless (sometimes assigned to this
passage, as by Liddell and Scott, but
very inappropriately) there seems to be
no example. In Soph. Zrach. 967 ἀναύ-
daros is merely a conjecture.

882. διχόφρονι πότμῳ. The strophe
and antistrophe (v. 894) do not agree,
and as neither is clear, correction is un-
certain. διχόφρων, a unique word, must
mean discordant, at variance, the opposite
of σύμφρων, concordant, of one mind
(4g. 112 of the brothers Agamemnon
and Menelaus), and would naturally be
the epithet of persons rather than of such
a word as πότμος. Nor is the combi-
nation of the two epithets dpaly διχόφρονι
very satisfactory. Apart from the anti-
strophe, the obvious correction here would
be Sxdhpovas—set against one another
by unnatural hate and by the fate which
their father invoked. The schol. οὐχ ὁμο-
νοοῦντες (-ras?) points in the same di-
rection, and changes of inflexion to suit
a neighbouring word are an extremely
common form of error. As to the
question of metre see on vw. 892—4.—

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

880

ἄντ. β΄.

885
887

κτέανά τ᾽ ἐπιγόνοιξ.

σὺν διχόφρονι Hermann; οὐ διχόφρονι
(in the sense of εἰρεαγ) Wecklein.

885. μένει δι’ ὧν αἰνομόροις, δ᾽ ὧν
γεῖκος ἔβα θανάτον τέλος: the cause, alas!
the cause for which the partitioners furt-
ously contended even to death. μένει δὲ
ὧν, literally ‘from fury produced by
which (possessions)’: ὧν is neuter, the
antecedent being ἐκεῖνα those things,
viz. the πόλις, πύργοι, and πέδον, the
royal inheritance of the house. A prose
writer would have said δι᾽ a, but the two
constructions are not accurately distin-
guished in poetry. péve, causal dative,
as in vw. 880; for the close connexion
between μένει and & ὧν cf. v. 806 ὑπ᾽
ἀλλήλων φόνῳ.---αἰνομόροιϑ : there is an
ambiguity in this word, which cannot be
reproduced, muserable in their death and
ἐπ their partition or shares (cf. μόρος,
μόρα, μοῖρα, μεμόρημαι). Their share was
death; cf. vv. 713, 801, 8ρο etc.—Savdrow
τέλος : τέλος is local accusative (place to
which) depending on ἔβα: θανάτου gen.
of definition, ‘the end death’, καὶ, if
genuine, would mean even; but it is
rightly omitted by C. G. Haupt on the
metrical evidence (see v. 877), and seems
to have been added by a reader who
took τέλος for a nominative.—pevel κτέανά
τ᾽ ἐπιγόνοις δι’ ὧν (MS.): ‘the possessions,
for which they died, will remain to their
descendants’. ἄλλοις ἔσται τὰ χρήματα
δι’ ἃ ἀπώλοντο schol. There is the strong-
est evidence that the words κτέανά τ᾽
ἐπιγόνοις are an interpolated explanation,
due to a misunderstanding of μένει:

a

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

[καὶ] θανάτου τέλος.

ἐμοιράσαντο δ᾽ ὀξυκάρδιοι

107

890

κτήμαθ᾽, ὥστ᾽ ἴσον λαχεῖν.

διαλλακτῆρι δ᾽ οὐκ
ἀμεμφεία φίλοις,

892. ἀμεμφία.

(1) there is nothing answering to them
in the strophe (vv. 874—5); (2) there is
no such connexion between the clauses
as to justify the use of τε; (3) the position
of re, there being no special connexion
between μενεῖ and κτέαρα or special
emphasis on xréava, is incorrect; (4) the
supposed use of μένω is incorrect; no
parallel to it has been produced or, I
believe, can be. Moreover μενεῖ xréava
ἐπιγόνοις, with the emphasis on the verb,
would mean, if anything, ‘the inheritance
will not be lost to their posterity’, whereas
the meaning assumed is ‘the inheritance
will pass. away to their posterity’; (5) the
allusion to posterity is against the whole
tenor of the play and of this lamentation,
which assumes throughout that the curse
of the house of Laius has now finished its
work, and that the line is at an end (see
especially the emphatic language of wv.
933—949 τελευτᾷ, παντρόπῳ φυγᾷ γένους,
ἔληξε δαίμων) According to the Argive
traditions Polynices, having married in
Argos the daughter of Adrastus, left a
son Thersander, who took part in the
expedition of the Zpigonz (the descendants
of the first invaders. See /ntroduction).
This-was the story of the epic 7%ebaz’s and
£pigonz: but the very passage of Pindar,
which is our chief authority for it, betrays
upon attentive examination that it was a
supplement, connected with the genealogy
of a great family, the Emmenidae of
Argos, and that the ancient story ended,
as the moral requires, with the extinction
of the disobedient house. Pindar relates
the sin of Laius, and the story of Oedipus,
and continues thus, ἰδοῖσα δ᾽ ὀξεῖ" ᾿Ερινὺς
ἔπεφνέ οἱ (Oedipus) σὺν ἀλλαλοφονίᾳ γένος
ἀρήιον" ---λείφθη δὲ Θέρσανδρος ἐριπέντι

Πολυνείκει,... ὅθεν σπέρματος ἔχοντα ῥίζαν
πρέπει τὸν Αἰνησιδάμου κτλ. (Ol. 11.
74). Aeschylus at any rate in this play
takes no notice of Thersander; and even
supposing his existence, it would be ab-
surd that Cadmean women should regard
as the heir of Cadmus this grandson
of Adrastus and son of an exile slain
in arms against his country. Whether
Polynices had left a son or no, the
brothers had left no ssccessor.—That it
is Thersander whom the writer here has
in mind, is probable (as Paley remarks)
from the use of the word ᾿Επίγονοι; but
this alone would indicate that the passage
has been garbled.

892—94. ἀμεμφεία Hermann.— διαλ»
λακτήρ, the mediator or arbitrator, ὦ. δ.
σίδηρος the sword, see vv. 717, 802 etc.—
μέμφονται δὲ οἱ φίλοι αὐτῶν τὸν διαλ-
λακτῆρα σίδηρον ὡς μηδετέρῳ χαρισάμενον,
‘the friends of the (respective) parties are
dissatisfied with the arbitrator, the sword,
as having favoured neither’, schol.; tak-
ing ἐπίχαρις in an active sense, ‘partial,
showing favour’, as ἐπίφθονος ‘feeling
dislike’. But this cannot be right: it
would require that the emphasis should
be on φίλοις (not as it is, on διαλλακτῆρι),
and that οὐκ ἀμεμφεία should be expressed
in positive form, not to mention other ob-
jections. If διαλλακτήρι δ᾽ οὐκ ἀμεμφεία
is right, as there is no reason to doubt,
the contrast is between the partition,
which is equal, and the conduct of she
arbitrator, which is nevertheless ποῖ
unimpeachable. But an arbitrator would
be impeachable for being partial, not for
being impartial, and this points to an
error in v. 894. Metre gives us no
assistance, the answering verse 882 being

108

οὐδ᾽ ἐπίχαρις “Apne.

σιδηρόπληκτοι μὲν ὧδ᾽ ἔχουσιν,

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

στρ. γ. 895

σιδηρόπληκτοι δὲ τοὺς μένουσι---

o> ow ” ,
TAX ἂν τις ELTTOL, TLVES ;

τάφων πατρῴων λαχαί.

δόμων μάλ᾽ ἀχάεσσα τοὺς t

896. μένουσι τετυμμένοι δῆθ᾽ ὁμοῦ (see v. 873)—text rece.

itself uncertain. The sense would be
satisfied (and the metre also if διχόφρονας
be right in v. 882) by ἐπίχαρις δ᾽ “Apns—
tn the partition their shares are equal;
yet against the mediator they that loved
them are not without complaint ; he hath
been partial—unto Ares. ἐπίχαρις will
then be not active but passive, ‘receiving
favour’; the form admits either meaning,
cf. ἐπίφθονος (disliking or disliked), ἐπί-
μομφος (blaming or blamable), ἐπικίνδυνος
(dangerous or in danger). The award of
ol8yposis equal as between the combatants,
and yet he has been determined by favour,
for he has given the two victims to his
friend the war-god (see v. 230 τούτῳ γὰρ
"Αρῆς βόσκεται, φόνῳ βροτῶν). For οὐκ...
δέ mot...buz, see on 411—123 in English
we require no conjunction, or if any, for.
The dative διαλλακτῆρι depends on
ἀμεμφεία, which has the construction of
péugopar.—Wecklein reconciles the two
clauses by omitting the negative in the
first (δ᾽ οὖν for δ᾽ οὐκ) retaining it in the
second. ‘ The friends have no complaint
against the mediator, and Ares is not
partial’. But this again, like the inter-
pretation of the schol., takes no account
of the emphasis, which should then be
not on διαλλακτῆρι but on ἀμεμφεία.----ΤῊς
fact that ἐπίχαρις in common prose was
used in a sense wholly inapplicable to
“Apns (charming, from χάρις in the sense
of charm) sufficiently accounts for the
false reading.

895. σιδηρόπληκτοι : σιδαρόπλακτοι
Robortello. The word is suggested by
the preceding reference to the διαλλακτήρ
in v, 892.

898. Aaxal: al σκαφαί, «ὡς; τὸ
““purdy ἀμφελάχαινε᾽᾽ (Hom. Od. 24.
241) schol. The requirements of the
context show that this is a genuine
tradition. The sense is ‘By σίδηρος (the
sword) they fell, and by σίδηρος (the
spade) they shall be buried’. This is put
in the form of an enigmatical question,
the answer to which is at the same time
a play upon the words λαχή digging and
λάχη portion, a synonym of λῆξις, and
related to λαχεῖν as λαβή (λῆψι:) to
λαβεῖν. The portion of their inheritance,
which awaits them, is the grave dug for
them. Cf. vv. 718, 774, 801—3, 929.
A comparison of these passages suggests
a doubt whether we ought not to read
λάχωσιν for λάβωσιν in 803. λάχη (λῆξις)
is cited by Hesychius; of λαχή (λαχαίνω)
there seems to be no other trace but this
passage. Such a form of expression at
such a moment is, like the style of
this lament generally, strange to our
feelings; but it is thoroughly characteristic
of Aeschylus. Some remarks on this
subject will be found in the second
Appendix. The epithet σιδηρόπληκτοι
(made with blows of tron) belongs
properly only to Aaxal, but the passages
cited show that Aaya: is also in view.
It should be noted that the accentuation
of λάχη (Angs) is uncertain. It is

_paroxytone in Hesychius (cf. τύχη), but

the great majority of these forms are
oxytone.—rovg demonstrative; hese
same.

899. Corrupt, and not to be restored
with certainty. From the antistrophe (v.
910) itis probable that the form of the verse

ETITA ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

προπέμπει Saixtnp γόος av-

/
TOCTOVOS αὐτοπήμων

109

δαΐφρων δ᾽, ov φιλογαθὴς ἐτύμως
δακρυχέων δ᾽ ἐκ φρενός, ἃ

κλαιομένας μου μινύθει

902.

was τοὺς... μάλ᾽ ἀχάεσσα. Ἴδε substantive
with which ἀχάεσσα agreed is lost: Weil
suggests ἰὰ woice (reading ἀχάεσσ᾽ ida and
changing the antistrophe): τοὺς ia μάλ᾽
᾿ axdeooa will suit both sense and metre
(see Appendix on metres). δόμων seems
to be an interpolation here and may be
strongly suspected to have been originally
a variant, perhaps the correct reading,
for τάφων in v. 898; cf. πατρῴους δόμους
in vw. 862, and see note there.

goo. Saixrip γόος the vending sigh.
αὐτόστονος, αὐτοπήμων of gricf unforced
and genuine pain, the prefix avro- im-
plying spontaneity.—_Sathpev δέ: though
in the heart of a foe, because, the brothers
being at war, those who lament as the
friends of one must lament as the enemies
of the other. This contrariety of sym-
pathies and the perplexities arising from
it form the burden of this whole scene
and lead up to that which follows. See
especially wv. 846—859, 906—gog, and
compare the significant words in the
Supplices (928) of Euripides, whose plays
on this subject are written with constant
reference to Aeschylus, τὸν Oldlrov δὲ
παῖδα, Πολυνείκη λέγω, ἡμεῖς (we Athe-
mians, as opposed to his countrymen)
ἐπαινέσαντες οὐ ψευδοίμεθ᾽ dv.— Aldus
and the editors generally omit δ᾽, taking
δαΐῴρων (or δαϊῤφρων Blomfield) in the
sense of miserable: but apart from the
injury to the point, ddtos is not thus used
by Aeschylus (in Pers. 284 Πέρσαις datos
it means martial, as in Soph. Az. 365
and Aristoph. Frogs 1022, and see év dat
Φ. 909): nor indeed is it at all clear that
it ever had this meaning. In Soph. 42.
484 ὦ data Τέκμησσα, δύσμορον γένος,
perhaps the strongest apparent case, the

- used.

datppw”.

proper meaning ostzs (stranger), referring
to the birth and status of Tecmessa, is
quite applicable-—As to the form, there
is no objection to datppwy except that of
metre, on which see the AAztendix.

902. ov φιλογαθὴς not ready to rejoice
like a false mourning which covers indif-
ference. ἐτύμως...μινύθει : but weeping
drops which come, not in mere phrase,
‘from the heart’; for my heart doth waste
away as 7 dissolve in tears for etc. ἐτύμως
(4terally) here, as ἔτυμος and ἐτήτυμος
almost always in Aeschylus, refers to the
verbal truth or exactness of the language
Most frequently they have in
Aeschylus the meaning which they still
retain, and mark an etymological suggest-
iveness in the form of a word (see the
second Appendix). Here the ἔτυμον is
in the phrase ἐκ φρενός, which in com-
mon metaphorical use signified no more
than sincerely (see v. 859), but is realized
literally by the violence of passionate
sorrow, in which the heart seems actually
to weep itself away and be dissolved.
The rare passive form κλαίομαι is scarcely
here to be considered as a synonym of
κλαίω: it is at all events most appro-
priate to the special sense, for the mourner
is regarded rather as the patient than the
agent of his sorrow.—8é should not be
omitted as bya late Ms. and some editions;
it marks the antithesis between φιλογαθής
and the following phrase. The position
of it after instead of before δακρυχέων is

. justified to the ear by the fact that the

antithesis is not between φιλογαθής and
ἐτύμως but between φιλογαθής and δακ-
ρυχέων ἐκ φρενός. The natural order
would be δακρυχέων δ᾽ ἐκ φρενὸς ἐτύμως,
but ἐτύμως is shifted from its place to

| @ fe)

A A 9 4
τοῖνδε δυοῖν ἀνάκτοιν.

nA ° ,
πάρεστι δ᾽ εἰπεῖν ἐπ᾽ ἀθλίοισιν

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

ἄντ. ¥.

ὡς ἐρξάτην πολλὰ μὲν πολίταις

ξένων τε πάντων στίχας
πολυφθόρους ἐν dal.

δυσδαίμων σφιν ἡ τεκοῦσα

οἵο

A nA € ,
πρὸ πασᾶν γυναικῶν ὁπόσαι

τεκνογόνοι κέκληνται.

παῖδα τὸν αὑτῶς πόσιν αὑτῷ θεμένα
τούσδ᾽ ἔτεχ᾽, οἱ δ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἐτελεύ-

τασαν ὑπ᾽ ἀλλαλοφόνοις
χερσὶν ὁμοσπόροισιν.

905.

emphasize the special point: the order
ἐτύμως δὲ Saxpuxéwy ἐκ φρενός would be
neither natural nor appropriate to the
emphasis.

go6. The eulogium pronounced by
custom over (él) dead warriors would
naturally declare their many deeds of
valour done on the ranks of the foe. How
then is the common eulogy of the two
princes to be phrased? For the deeds of
Polynices were done upon those who
were the fellow-citizens of Eteocles, and
properly speaking his own; and the deeds
of Eteocles upon those, who, if not the
πολῖται, were ‘all of them ξένοι᾽ of
Polynices. The word πάντων is inserted
because in the strict sense the Argives
only were his ξένοι, but the term might
be naturally extended to all the confede-
rates who espoused his cause. It would
simplify the expression to read πάντως
(at all events ξένοι) but it is not necessary.
The word ξένων has the effect of a sur-
prise; the antithesis to πολλὰ μὲν πολί-
ras should have been dgwy re στίχας.
For the connexion of this with the pre-
ceding see notes on wu. 851, 858.—pav...
τέ indeed...but also, or though...yet also:
cf. Eur. Med. 429 μακρὸς δ᾽ αἰὼν ἔχει
πολλὰ μὲν ἁμετέραν ἀνδρῶν re μοῖραν el-
πεῖν i the long history of time there ἐς
many a hard word, some doubtless for aur

915

δοιοῖν.

sex, but some for the men αἶτ0.---τολί-
ταις. In the later Mss. and modern edi-
tions this is changed to πολίτας, on the
assumption that it depends directly on
ἐρξάτην : δρᾶν τί τινα, not δρᾶν τί τινι,
being the correct construction. But the
balance of the sentence shows that, if we
change at all, we ought to write not
πολίτας but πολιτᾶν (genitive plural), the
full form being ἐρξάτην πολλὰ μὲν πο-
λιτῶν στίχας, πολλά τε ξένων στίχας. With
πολίτας we should require ξένους (not
ξένων στίχας) in the parallel clause. We
should not however write even πολιτᾶν,
for πολίταις has the same meaning. It is
the possessive dative, for which see vv.
167, 621, gto etc. and cf. Eur. Afed. 283
μή pol τι δράσῃς παῖδ᾽ ἀνήκεστον κακόν (my
child), ib. 1304 μή μοί τι δράσὥσι (παῖδας)
οἱ προσήκοντες γένει. In parallel clauses-
of this kind the two possessive cases,
genitive and dative, are not unfrequently
‘interchanged for mere variety; ¢.g. in
Eur. 4/1pp. 188 λύπη τε φρενῶν χερσίν τε
πόνος.---πολνφθόρους passive, s/ain in
numbers.
915. ἀλλαλοφόνοις ... ὁμοσπόροισιν :
see on v. 629.

g17—920. The word διατομαῖς here
is commonly declared corrupt for two
reasons, (1) the metre and doubtful read-
ing of the antistrophe v. 930, (2) the ab-

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBA2.

[1Σ.]
διατομαῖς οὐ φίλαις,
ἔριδι μαινομένᾳ,
νεΐκεος ἐν τελευτᾷ.

ὁμόσποροι δῆτα καὶ πανώλεθροι,

στρ. δ΄.

920

πέπαυται δ᾽ ἔχθος, ἐν δὲ γαίᾳ

ζόα φονορρύτῳ

μέμικται: κάρτα δ᾽ εἴσ᾽ ὅμαιμοι.

surdity of the description οὐ φίλαις, if
διατομαΐί is referred as by the Schol. to the
wounds of the combatants (διατέμνοντες
ἀλλήλου:), as if to cut a man to pieces were
usually the act of a friend. The first argu-
ment has of course no force if this passage
is itself explicable; but the second is
irresistible as far as it goes. But Weil,
who suggests διανομαῖς, and Oberdick,
who suggests διαλλαγαῖς, have perceived,
what a comparison of velxeos in v. 920
with νεικέων in v. 924 clearly shows, that
the reference is to the disputed partition
of the inheritance. And, this seen, there
is no reason for changing διατομαῖς at all.
Wherever the inheritance is mentioned
it is the Ζαρα which is chiefly in view, as
appears from the repeated contrast be-
tween the broad acres and the narrow
grave; and for marking off portions of land
τέμνειν (see the Lex. s.v., and compare
Téuevos) is the appropriate word. There
remain however two difficulties: (1) οὐ
φίλαις not friendly, though not absurd as
applied to a partition, is still strangely
weak, usless there is some point in the
contrast with a friendly partition: and
(2) a much graver difficulty, what is the
point of joining ὁμόσποροι (with an em-
phasis, note δῆτα) so closely to πανωλεθροι
κτλ What is the sense of ‘brothers
indeed and altogether destroyed’ or
‘ruined’? There is one supposition
however which will completely solve
the problem—that in ὁμόσποροι, as in
σιδηρόπληκτοι Aaxal v. 896, in ἐκ φρενός
v. 903, and in ὅμαιμοι v. 923, there is a
double meaning. The analogy of ὁμό-
σκηνος, ὁμοτράπεζος, ὁμότεχνος, ὁμοσίπνυος
etc, shows that ὁμόσποροι would be a

proper description of persons who owned
and farmed a piece of land in common,
contributing the seed and dividing the
crops. Sophocles (Ο. 7: 460) describes
Oedipus as ὁμόσπορος τοῦ πατρός, and
Jocasta (2b. 260) as ὁμόσπορος γυνή, ex-
pressions which exactly illustrate the use
of the word here supposed. When two
such tenants desire a partition of the
common land, they may effect it of
course, much to their advantage, by
friendly arrangement (dtaroual φίλαι) :
but they may be so unwise as to
carry their dispute before the law (ἔρις
μαινομένα, see the legal metaphors in
the following lines and particularly ~v.
927); in which case they will not im-
probably find themselves when the con-
test is over (velxeos ἐν τελευτᾷ), like the
brother princes, παρνώλεθροι or ‘utterly
ruined’, For the second sense given to
ὁμόσπορος I cannot cite an extant ex-
ample, but the complete and simple ex-
planation which it furnishes of a passage
otherwise hopeless seems to justify an as-
sumption, which, as the custom is familiar
in all ages and places, can hardly appear
extravagant. διατομαῖς and ἔριδι are
causal datives, the second explaining the
first. The ὁμόσποροι are ruined because
they do not settle their affairs amicably,
and this they do not do because they are
madly contentious. —For the omission of
the verb to ὁμόσποροι cf. v. 872.

923. KdptTa...dpamor: an equivoca-
tion (cf. ὁμόσποροι v. 0917) between the
senses ‘of one blood (kindred)’ and
‘whose blood is mingled’. Among
various savage and half-civilised races
the mingling of the blood of two persons

112

\ \ φ ῇ
πικρὸς λυτὴρ νεικέων ὁ πόντιος

aA 3 Ἁ
ξεῖνος ἐκ πυρὸς συθεὶς

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

θηκτὸς σίδαρος" πικρὸς δὲ χρημάτων
κακὸς δατητὰς “Apns, ἀρὰν

πατρὸς τιθεὶς ἀλαθῆ.

[AN.] ἔχουσι μοῖραν λαχόντες μέλεοι

διοσδότων ἀχέων'
927. ἀρᾷ corr. to ἀρὰν.

is a well-known ceremony for making a
connexion between them or an artificial
kindred (see ¢.g. Robertson Smith Kzn-
ship in Ancient Arabia, p. 50, Cameron
Across Africa, vol. 1. p. 333): and this
passage suggests what is quite probable in
itself, that a similar custom at some time
prevailed among the Greeks: see also
Plato Critras,p. 110. It cannot of course
be inferred with certainty, not being
necessary to the sense, and in any case
we need not suppose a conscious allusion
to it, as in this and many other such
mystic equivocations Aeschylus probably
follows the authority of a consecrated
tradition.

924. πικρὸς. ‘Dearly have they paid
for the ending of their strife (by the sword)’
t.¢. for the arbitration of the sword. See
on v. 867.---πόντιοςφ from the Main: ἔθνος
yap ἐν τῷ Πόντῳ οἱ Χάλυβες, ὅθεν ὁ σί-
δηρος schol. For this use of Πόντος (the
Euxine) as a proper name cf. Eur. Med.
433 διδύμους πόντου πέτρας, of the Sym-
plegades rocks at the entrance of the
Euxine.

925. ἐκ πυρὸς συθὲὶς θηκτὸς sped sharp
from the fire, t.e. having taken a cruel
temper from the fire in which it was
forged. These words mark the point of
πικρός, which is again equivocal, being
applicable to the sword literally in the
sense of ‘sharp’ (cf. πικρὸς diords, πικρὰ
βέλεμνα etc.) and metaphorically in the
sense above explained ‘bitter’, z.¢. fatal,
to those who sought its arbitration.

926. The construction is πικρὸς xp7-
μάτων δατητὰς ὁ κακὸς Αρης. κακὸς /a/sz,

ἄντ. δ΄.
930
929. ὦ μέλεοι rece.

because the sentence has been given in
the interest of Ares himself through his
friend and representative σίδηρος : see
on v. 894. For this meaning see Eur.
Med. 84 κακός γ᾽ ὧν és φίλους ἁλίσκεται,
Or. 740 κακὸς ἐφωράθη φίλοις, 4. 736,
748, Soph. O. 7. 582.

927. A comparison with the metre of
vv. 939, 940 shows a defect here. ἀρὰν
πατρῴ-αν τιθεὶς ἀλαθὴ Bothe, realising a
Jather’s curse, πατρὸς being in that case
an explanation of πατρῴαν. This is not
perfectly satisfactory, as there is no con-
nexion between the fulfilling of a curse
and arbitration, which is the ruling meta-
phor of the sentence. It seems more
probable that in πατρὸς τιθεὶς we should
find προστιθεὶς (assigning, awarding), x poo
being an abbreviation for πατρὸς and

sometimes confused with it: ἀρὰν πατρὸς.

προστιθεὶς ἀλαθῆ, awarding to them their
father’s curse realized ox the fulfilment of
their father’s curse, would give appro-
priate sense.—Note the assonance of
“Apys ἀρὰν which is undoubtedly inten-
tional, and in fact a play of sound; Ares
has behaved according to his appellation.

929. μοῖραν portion, share, but with
a glance at the alternative sense, ‘they
have received their doom’; cf. Eur.
Phoen. 1547 ποίᾳ μοίρᾳ ἔλιπον φάος; and
Med. 987 μοῖραν θανάτου.

930. διοσδότων. διοδότων Bothe, δια-
δότων (divided) Meineke, for metre (see
v. 917). But it is possible that διοσ- was
pronounced as a monosyllable, which
would give sufficiently accurate corre-
spondence.—dxéov. Unless—a_possi-

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBAZ.

e \ ’ A
ὑπὸ δὲ σώματι yas

πλοῦτος ἄβυσσος ἔσται.
3 ΛΝ a 9 v4
ἰὼ πολλοῖς ἐπανθίσαντες

[1Σ.]

, Φ
πόνοισι γενεάν'

τελευτᾷ δ᾽ aid’ ἐπηλαλαξαν

933. ἐπανθήσαντες.

bility not to be overlooked—this ἦχος is
an unknown (perhaps local) word, it must
be an error: ἄχος woe suits neither the
metre nor the sense. The sense refuses
both ἀχθέων (Hermann) and ἀλγέων
(Blomfield). The word must be de-
scriptive of the royal property or in-
heritance—6é.ocdoros, because the rights
of kings (dorpepets BactAnes) are es-
pecially the gift of Zeus. Perhaps ἀρχέων,
genitive of ἀρχαί sovereignty, realm: there
is nothing improbable in the use of such
an ‘epic’ form in the composite and
irregular language of tragic lyrics.

931. yas πλοῦτος with irony. Their
greed of land will be satisfied.

933—940. ‘Alas, for the renown of
the royal house, overthrown by this
final victory of Fate!’ With such
words ‘the triumph-song of Death’ (νυ.
854) appropriately concludes. For the
form of the antithesis, ἐτανθίσαντες--- ἐπη-
λάλαξαν δέ, see v. 800. ἐπανθίσαντες
Bothe. The intransitive ἐπανθήσαντες
of the Ms. is not excluded by the metre;
a long vowel often answering to a short
in thesis (syllables on which the beat of
the rhythm does not fall), even in the most
Severe strophic metres. With éwav@7-
σαντες we must take the alternative wé-
γοισί ye δόμοι (correcting thus), and
this has the advantage of clearness, for
ἐπανθίσαντες γενεάν might refer only to
the brothers, which, as the sequel shows,
is not the intention. In either case,
ἄνθος signifies the wreath of honour, as
frequently in Pindar. See Οὐ. vit. 80 ἀέθ-
λοις, τῶν ἄνθεσι Διαγόρας ἐστεφανώσατο
δίς, Nem. V. 54 ἀνθέων ποιᾶντα στεφανώ-
ματα, Ol. τι. 50 ἄνθεα τεθρίππων, Ol, IX.

V. 7B,

934. γενεάν" πόνοισί γε δόμους.

113

935
935. ald’.

48, VI. 105 ὕμνων ἄνθεα (ἄνθος), Nem. 1Χ.
30 Ἕκτορι κλέος ἀνθῆσαι. Eur. Hee. 1210
“Ἑκτορός τ᾽ ἤνθει δόρυ (was triumphant)
εἴς. ---πτόνοισι feats, enterprises, as in the
phrase πόνοι Ἡρακλέος, and several times
in Pindar, Pyth. IV. 243 ἤλπετο οὐκέτι
οἱ κεῖνόν ye πράξεσθαι πόνον (of Aecétes
sending Jason to encounter the dragon),
Ol. V1. 11 εἰ καλόν τι ποναθῇ, Lsth. U1. 17
kal ματρόθε Λαβδακίδαισιν σύννομοι πλού-
τον διέστειχον τετραοριᾶν πόνοις (of ἃ
family which claimed descent through
the female line from this house of Laius
itself), Ol. ν. 15 πόνος δαπάνα re pdpva-
ται πρὸς ἔργον, Eur. Suppl. 317 φαῦλον
ἀθλῆσαι πόνον, Auct. Rhes. 197 πόνος
εὐκλεής (a glorious enterprise), Soph. Ant.
907 τόνδ᾽ dy ἠρόμην πόνον, and in the
proverbs πόνος εὐδοξίας πατήρ, οἱ πόνοι
τίκτουσι τὴν εὐδοξίαν, etc. The reference
is not specially to the martial renown
of the brothers but to all those who
have glorified the famous house which
has so long contended against Fate, and
particularly to Oedipus (see v. 757).—The
schol. (m’) explains these lines by of πολλὰ
κακὰ ἰδόντες (and so Paley and others), but
this misses the point of ἐπανθίσαντες and
spoils the contrast with vv. 935--- 940.
Cho. 150—151 ὑμᾶς δὲ κωκυτοῖς ἐπαν-
θίξειν νόμος, παιᾶνα τοῦ θανόντος ἐξαυ-
δωμένας (cited by Paley) may perhaps
not be correct, but the connexion of
ἐπανθίζειν with the παιάν aptly illustrates
the antithesis here.

935. τελευτᾷ δ᾽ αἵδε but now over
the close of all the Erinyes have sung etc.
For ὅδε marking the present close of a
series (ow) see on v. 618.---τελευταῖαι δ᾽
Hermann.— Apal: name of the ’Epwies,

8

114 ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

ἀραὶ τὸν ὀξὺν νόμον, τετραμμένου

παντρόπῳ φυγᾷ γένους.

ἔστακε δ᾽ “Aras τροπαῖον ἐν πύλαις,

ἐν αἷς ἐθείνοντο, καὶ δνοῖν κρατή-

σας ἔληξε δαίμων. 940
ΑΝ. παισθεὶς ἔπαισας.
ΙΣ. σὺ δ᾽ ἔθανες κατακτανῶν.
ΑΝ. δορὶ δ᾽ ἔκανες.
ΙΣ. δορὶ δ᾽ ἔθανες.
ΑΝ. μελεόπονος. 945
ΙΣ. μελεοπαθής.
AN. ἔτω γόος.
ΙΣ. ἴτω δάκρυα.
AN. ΙΣ. προςκείσεται κατακτάς.
ΑΝ. 76. στρ. 950
ΙΣ. ἠέ.
ΑΝ. μαίνεται γόοισι φρήν.
ΙΣ. ἐντὸς δὲ καρδία στένει.
ΑΝ. ἰὼ ἰώ, πανδάκρυτε σύ.
ΙΣ. σὺ δ᾽ αὖτε καὶ παναθλιε. 955
AN. πρὸς φίλου ἔφθισο.
ΙΣ. καὶ φίλον ἔκτανες.
AN. διπλᾶ λέγειν.
ΙΣ. διπλᾶ δ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
ΑΝ. ἀχέων τοίων τάδ᾽ ἐγγύθεν. 960
I>. πέλας δ᾽ αἵδ᾽ ἀδελφαὶ ἀδελφεών.

943. ἕκτανεσ. 956. φίλον γ᾽. ούο. ἀκχέων.

see Eum. 420 ᾿Αραὶ δ᾽ ἐν οἴκοις γῆς ὑπαὶ
κεκλήμεθα.---πτηλάλαξαν in the proper
sense of ἀλαλάζω, the cry of victory.
γόμον song, tune.

937. παντρόπῳ φυγᾷ utter defeat,
the line, that is the male line, being now
annihilated: see on v. 885.

941—995. The θρῆνος or dirge proper
(v. 848). With this shoyld be compared
the closing scene of the Fersae. In the
MS. most of the parts are marked only
with the ‘ paragraphus’; the exact distri-
bution is therefore uncertain, but it is
obviously in response between the sisters.

943. ἕκανες Hermann.

949. προσκείσεται (θανόντι) κατακ-
τάς the slayer shall be buried likewise,
lit. ‘be laid by him whom he slew’. Prose
would require 6 κατακτάς, but in poetry,
especially in Aeschylus, the article is
omitted frequently. —2péxeccas Hermann,
in order that the words may be divisible
into equal metrical parts. But if, as
seems likely, in this verse both sisters
join (Schneider) there is no reason to
divide it into responses,

954. πανδάκρυτε: πάνδυρτε Ritschl.

960, 961: probably corrupt. The an-

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. 115

AN. IX. t@ Μοῖρα βαρυδότειρα poyepa,

πότνιά τ᾽ Οἰδίπου σκιά,

μέλαιν᾽ “Epsvds ἦ μεγασθενής τις el.
ΑΝ. ἠέ. ἄντ. 965
ΙΣ. ἠέ.
AN. δυσθέατα πήματα
ΙΣ. ἐδείξατ᾽ ἐκ φυγᾶς ἐμοί.
ΑΝ, οὐδ᾽ ἵκεθ᾽ ὡς κατέκτανεν.
ΙΣ. σωθεὶς δὲ πνεῦμ᾽ ἀπώλεσεν. 970
ΑΝ. ἀπώλεσεν δῆτα,
I. καὶ τόνδ᾽ ἐνόσφισεν.
ΑΝ. τάλαν γένος.
ΙΣ. τάλαν πάθος.
AN. δύστονα κήδε᾽ ὁμώνυμα. 975

Id.

964. μέλαινά τ᾽.
ὀλοὰ δ᾽ ὁρᾶν.

tistrophe (vv. 975. 976) affords no assist-
ance. If rolwy is genuine, it stands for
διπλῶν. See on Ψ. 567.

964. μέλαιν᾽ "Epwis Porson.

968 doubtful, as ἐκ φυγᾶς after exile
can only refer to Polynices, and this does
not suit the verb édelgare. The emphasis
on ἐμοί also does not appear suitable.
τόνδ᾽ ἐδέξατ᾽ ἐκ φνγᾶς Weil.

969, 970. <A schol. refers wv. 969 to
Eteocles, who ‘ returned not when he had
slain’ (because, according to the descrip-
tion in Euripides, Phoen. 1407—1423,
Eteocles struck down Polynices first, and
supposing him dead was stabbed in the
act of spoiling him), and v. 970, rather
inconsistently, to Polynices, who ‘in the
moment of safety (#.¢. of return to his
native land) lost his life’, But the battle
is not described by Aeschylus, and it is
not necessary to assume any facts respect-
ing it. - Both lines apply sufficiently to
either brother; each ‘slew his rival, yet
came not home’, and each ‘died in the
moment: of deliverance’, that is, when
his rival fell.—85’ ice?’ Hermann: συθεὶς
Stanley: but neither change is a clear

974. τάλανα καὶ πάθον.

δίνγρα τριπάλτων πημάτων.

976. πημάτων.---ὀλοὰ λέγειν.---

improvement. In writing of this kind a
certain obscurity is inevitable and unob-
jectionable.

971,972. ὥλεσε δῆτ᾽ ἄπο καὶ τὸν ἐνό-
σφισε 6. Ο, W. Schneider. See vv. 956,
957. The exact reading is uncertain.

974. τάλαν πάθος Schuetz. Perhaps
τάλαν πάθον (1.6. ἔπαθον), cruel ts ther
fate.

975,976. These lines are hopelessly ob-
scure and cannot be restored, the strophe
being also defective. Whether ὁμώνυμα
merely means that the dead are of the
same race, or whether these lines, as
others, have some reference to their names,
it is impossible to say. The enigmatical
dluypa may stand for λυγρὰ (Dindorf
and others). Of τριπάλτων no explanation
can now be given, and it is probably an
error. A schol. gives the interpretation
σφόδρα πηδησάντων, which must appa-
rently have been originally written on a
different word, derived not from πάλλω
but from ἄλλομαι. --- Τῆς interpolation
after these verses was removed by Tri-
clinius: see v. 984.

8——2

116 AIZXYAOY
AN. IX. ἰὼ Μοῖρα βαρυδότειρα poyepa,

πότνιά τ᾽ Οἰδίπου σκιά,

μέλαιν᾽ Ἐρινὺς ἦ μεγασθενής τις el.
ΑΝ, σὺ τοίνυν οἶσθα διαπερῶν. 980
Id. σὺ δ᾽ οὐδὲν ὕστερος μαθών.
ΑΝ, ἐπεὶ κατῆλθες ἐς πόλιν.
ΙΣ. δορός γε τῷδ᾽ ἀντηρέτας.
ΑΝ, ὀλοὰ λέγειν.
ΙΣ. ὁλοὰ δ᾽ ὁρᾶν. 985
ΑΝ, ἰὼ πόνος.
TX. id Kaka.
AN. δώμασι καὶ χθονί.
Id. καὶ τὸ πρόσω γ᾽ ἐμοί.
ΑΝ. ἰὼ id δυστάνων κακῶν ἄναξ. 990
ΙΣ. ἰὼ πάντων πολυπονώτατοι.
AN. ΙΣ. id δαιμονῶντες ἐν ara.
AN. ἰώ σφε ποῦ θήσομεν χθονός ;
ΤΣ. ἰὼ ὅπου τιμιώτατον,
AN. ΙΣ. ἰὼ ἰώ, πῆμα πατρὶ πάρευνον. 995

979- μέλαινα 7’,

987. ἰὼ ἰὼ κακὰ δώμασιν | --- καὶ χθονί" πρὸ πάντων δ᾽ ἐμοί"

993. ἰὼ ποῦ σφε.

g80—995. These lines answer to each
other in pairs like wv. 941—948.

980. οἶσθα διαπερῶν thou knowest it
(the might of the Erinys) dy proof, ‘ by
having gone that way’; cf. the French
colloquial expression ‘avoir passé par 14’.

989. πρὸ πάντων δ᾽ ἐμοί, omitted by
Haupt, was added as an explanation of
τὸ πρόσω ye, and more.

990—991. To 990 the marginal note
ἐτεόκλεις dpxnyéra is added by m, whether
as a conjectural reading of the text or
merely as an explanation does not appear.

993. ἰώσφε ποῦ Wecklein.

994. ὅπον τιμιώτατόν (ἐστι) 22 the
place of most honour, the royal sepulchre
of their fathers.

995. πῆμα πατρὶ πάρευνον vexing
alas! the father by whom they are laid;
the curse of the house may disturb even
the peace of the grave, where the brothers
will meet their worst enemy. The whole

phrase is in apposition to oge. For
εὐνή of the grave see Cho. 317 ἔνθα σ᾽
ἔχουσιν evval (Orestes of Agamemnon),
Soph. 2. 436 els εὐνὴν πατρός (Electra of
Agamemnon) and see on w. 998.— This
expression is in one respect extremely in-
teresting. Taken in the only natural
sense it implies, as Weil points out, that
Oedipus died in his house and was buried
there with his fathers. This was the
orthodox Epic tradition; the story im-
mortalized by Sophocles, that Oedipus
was driven into exile and died mysteri-
ously at Colonus in Attica, seems to have
had no foundation beyond at most a local
Attic legend. Speaking of a ‘tomb of
Oedipus’ shown (according to a third
account) on the Areopagus, Pausanias
says πολυπραγμονῶν δὲ εὕρισκον τὰ ὀστᾶ
ἐκ Θηβῶν κομισθέντα" τὰ γὰρ ἐς τὸν θάνα-
Tov Σοφοκλεῖ πεποιημένα τὸν Οἰδίπου“ Ομη-
pos (ἴ.5, probably the Theban epics) οὐκ

ETTTA ΕΠῚ ΘΗΒΑΣ.

117

KHPT#.

δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντ᾽ ἀπαγγέλλειν pe χρὴ
δήμου προβούλοις τῆσδε Καδμείας πόλεως.

εἴα μοι δύξαι πιστά, os ἔφη Μηκιστέα τελευ-
τήσαντος Οἰδίποδος ἐπιτάφιον ἐλθόντα ἐς
Θήβας ἀγωνίσασθαι (1. 27. 7), and simi-
larly with reference to the legend of Co-
lonus, διάφορα μὲν καὶ ταῦτα τῇ 'Ομήρον
ποιήσει" λέγουσι δ᾽ οὖν. The allusion here
therefore follows authority; but it is a
curious illustration of the freedom with
which these quasi-historical legends were
treated, that Aeschylus writing for an
Athenian audience should ignore a story
which in Sophocles grows into some-
thing of deep national importance.—Paley
translates ‘Alas for the calamity that fol-
lowed my father’s marriage!’ or ‘for
the evil that was wedded to my father’,
and supposes a reference to Jocasta. This
reference seems to me irrelevant and out
of place, nor do I think that the words
and context admit it,

996. Zhe Herald. A difficulty has been
found here as to the distribution of parts.
Weil supposes that the part of the
herald must have been taken by the
actor who represented Ismene, and places
here vv. 1045—1048 to give opportunity
for the change. Bursian supposes some-
thing to be lost. But the assumption
itself seems both unnecessary and un-
natural. The statement that Aeschylus
used only two actors is satisfied if there
are not in any scene more than two
persons actually speaking; and need not
be stretched to mean that he never put
on the stage together three persons who
had at some time parts to speak. The
present scene, with others, shows that this
was not so. Ismene could not here leave
the stage without spoiling the dramatic
effect, but from the entrance of the herald
she is a κωφὸν πρόσωπον, like Bla in the
opening of the Prometheus.

δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντα. Jt hath been
approved and resolved, as I am to

make known etc. The redundance of ex-
pression belongs properly to a legal for-
mula, and should not raise suspicion. The
effect of it is happily aided by the stiff
and peculiar rhythm of the verse (with |
only the quasi-caesura after the prepo-
sition ἀπ-αγγέλλειν), in this place artistic
and quite justifiable. δοκοῦντα is the im-
perfect (not the present) participle; the
formula of the decree itself would be
ἐδόκει καὶ ἔδοξε. The difference between
the two is that ἐδόκει (t# seemed good)
signifies the opinion of the authorities,
ἔδοξε (11 was determined) the resolution
which they passed accordingly. Weil
proposes δόξαντα καὶ δοκοῦντα ‘the council
have decreed and do decree’, supposing
δοκοῦντα to be of the present tense. But
the meaning proposed would rather re-
quire δόξαντα καὶ δεδογμένα.

997. ϑήμον προβούλοις. The ex-
pression is curiously exact. By the ex-
tinction of the royal line the city is with-
out a government. Aeschylus, following
the democratic ideas of his own time
and country, supposes that under these
circumstances the sovereignty has re-
verted to the people (δῆμος), and is exer-
cised for the necessary purposes of the
moment by πρό-βουλοι, a preliminary or
provisional council of leading persons
(see v. 1017), acting z«#té/ and subject to
the future determination of the δῆμος
itself. The point of the term is exactly
illustrated by the πρόβουλοι of Athens in
411 B.C.,who administered the government
pending the arrangements for the consti-
tution of the Four Hundred. Sophocles
(Anz. 31) attributes the decree to Creon,
brother of Jocasta, whoas a near connexion
of the house, assumes the vacant throne,
a supposition undoubtedly more suitable
to ‘heroic’ times, and dramatically, for
such a play as the Antigone, almost

118

AIZXYAOY

Ἐτεοκλέα μὲν τόνδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ εὐναίᾳ χθονὸς
θάπτειν ἔδοξε γῆς φίλαις κατασκαφαῖς"

στυγῶν γὰρ ἐχθροὺς θάνατον εἴλετ᾽ + ἐν πόλει,

1000

ἱερῶν πατρῴων ὅσιος ὧν μομφῆς ἄτερ,

998. εὐνοίᾳ rece.

necessary. No κῆρυξ, πρόβουλος, or προ-
στάτης δήμου could well have played the
‘tyrannical’ part of Sophocles’ Creon.
998. ἐπ᾽ ewvalg... κατασκαφαῖς fo bury
him lovingly, digging in the ground his
carthy bed. ἐπ᾽ εὐναίᾳ χθονὸς, literally
‘with bed of earth’: ἐπί of the condition
or way in which a thing is done: edvala
substantive, a synonym of εὐνή, for which
see Eur. Jon 172 ebvalas καρφηρὰς θήσων
τέκνοις. (It is also used by Apollonius
Rhodius, 1. 935, rightly or wrongly, as
a synonym for εὐνή in the sense of
anchor, anchorage.)—xaracxagpais: in ap-
position to edvalg; the use of the word
in the sense of ‘digging down into’ is, as
a Schol. notices, peculiar: οἷον τὰς κάτω
σκαφάς. Sophocles (Ant. 920) has it for
the thing so dug, the grave. The com-
moner sense is ravage, destruction, as in
v. 46.—Modern editors have generally
accepted the plausible conjecture of the
later Mss. ἐπ᾿ εὐνοίᾳ χθονὸς (for his
loyalty to the land), but I think wrongly;
for (1) evvalg χθονὸς is strongly con-
firmed by ποῦ χθονός ;...... πάρευνον in
vv. 993—995- The close of the dirge
is obviously designed to lead up effec-
tively to the interruption of the herald,
and this effect is much enhanced by
the parallelism of language; he speaks

as if he had actually heard the last words: ©

(2) the addition of the qualification ἐπ’
εὐναίᾳ χθονός to θάπτειν prepares the way
for the irony of v.1012. Both princes are
in a manner to be ‘buried’, but Eteocles
in the grave as a friend, Polynices as
a foe by the fowls of the air. The expla-
nation of evvalg as a substantive is as old
as the schol. (εὐφήμως τὸν τάφον ἐὐνὴν
εἶπεν), but does not appear to have been
noticed in recent times. |

1000. στυγῶν ἐχθροὺς ating his
country’s foes, as a good citizen should,
and not allying himself with them, like
the false Polynices.—efpywv δηλονότι is a
conjecture in the schol., whence Dobree,
Hartung and others στέγων, in the sense
(very doubtful, as Paley observes) of
‘holding off the foe’. But στυγῶν is
thoroughly characteristic of ancient senti-
ment and should on no account be
changed.

1000—1003. θάνατον... καλόν. There
is plainly some error here, as we have
two verbs εἵλετο... τέθνηκεν without any
copula. To mend this δ᾽ is inserted in
the MS. after πατρῴων either by the first
hand or by m. But apart from this,
θάνατον εἵλετ᾽ ἐν πόλει is a strange and
scarcely intelligible expression, whether
ἐν πόλει be taken with εἵλετο or with
θάνατον, and here probably the error lies.
If for ef\er’ ἐν we had an adjective
agreeing with θάνατον and constructed with
πόλει, θάνατον would have a natural con-
struction as accusative cognate to τέθνη-
κεν. 1 would suggest θάνατον ἱλητὸν
πόλει... τέθνηκεν, he has died at peace with
his country, literally ‘a death bespeaking
the good-will of his country’, from ἱλά-
σκομαι (Ϊἵλάομαι ἵλαμαι) fo seek favour.
πόλει will then be ethic dative. From
the use of ἰλάομαι as a term in religion
(see Lex. s.v.), this would accord ex-
cellently with the phrases of the following
line, in which patriotism is distinctly re-
garded as a religious obligation. For
the form of the word see on ἄπιστος
(πείθομαι) v. 827.—édv τέλει Jacobs, ἐν
πύλαις Francken, ὄλεθρον εἶργε τῇ πόλει
Weil.

1001. having discharged without fault

his duty to the religion of his fathers.

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBAZ.

119

, 4 ’ ’ ¢
τέθνηκεν οἷσπερ ὀρνέοις θνήσκειν καλόν.

a \ 3 AQd 9 7 , .
οὕτω μὲν audi τοῦδ᾽ ἐπέσταλται λέγειν
τούτου 8 ἀδελφὸν τόνδε Πολυνείκους νεκρὸν

ἔξω βαλεῖν ἄθαπτον, ἁρπαγὴν κυσίν,

ὡς ὄντ᾽ ἀναστατῆρα Καδμείων χθονός,
εἰ μὴ θεῶν τις ἐμποδὼν ἔστη Sopi—
τῷ τοῦδ᾽ ἄγος δὲ καὶ θανὼν κεκτήσεται---

1002.

ἱερῶν (or ἱρῶν) depends as genitive of
respect on ὅσιος, literally ‘clear in re-
spect of them’. Cf. ἀφοσιοῦσθαι to dis-
charge oneself (of an obligation).

1002. οἷσπερ ὀρνέοις θνήσκειν καλόν
with such augury as makes death fair.
With ὀρνέοις here contrast the grim
irony of πετηνῶν ὑπ᾽ οἰωνῶν in v. 1011.
παρὰ τὸ els olwvds ἄριστος ἀμύνεσθαι,
Schol. ‘This is imitated from εἷς οἰωνὸς
ἄριστος ἀμύνεσθαι περὶ πάτρης, The best
omen of all omens ἐς the patriot cause
Hom. 27. 12. 243’.—I have ventured to
place this correction in the text, as the
note cited appears to make it absolutely
certain. In the Ms. reading there is
nothing even remotely suggesting the
highly peculiar expression which the
scholium cites as the model of it. The
cause of error was probably the re-
semblance of letters in ofor€ POPvéors,
which became οἷσπερ νέοις, and was then
patched up as we find it. We may per-
haps hesitate however between τέθνηκεν
οἷσπερ and τέθνηκε τοῖσπερο The form
ὄρνεον for ὄρνις, though rare in poetry,
is ancient and Homeric (//. 13. 64),
which would be sufficient recommenda-
tion to Aeschylus. Apart from the schol.
the MS. reading might be suspected if not
condemned on its own demerits: patri-
otism is not honourable in the young
only; and Aeschylus would have written
νέοις not τοῖς νέοις.

1008. τῷ τοῦδε ὦ. 4. τῷ τοῦ ᾿Ετεοκλέους
δορί, instrumental dative,—had not a
higher power prevented his (Polynices’)
spear by means of the spear of Eteocles. The

οὗπερ τοῖς νέοις.

1008. ἄγος.

speaker turns from one corpse to the other,
as inv, 1004 τούτου.. τόνδε. If τῷ τοῦδε
be taken with δορὶ in the sense τῷ Πολυ-
νείκους, it is superfluous and not Greek,
especially as the rhythm (see vv. 498, 660,
and notes on wv. 510, 566) throws an em-
phasis upon it. The sense and the situa-
tion also require that Eteocles, the instru-
ment of heaven (see v. 1066), should not
be ignored. In the next clause (v. 1009)
ὅδε is added to mark the return from
Eteocles to Polynices. But for this it
would be out of place (whence Weil’s
proposal to read ἀτιμάσας ἔχει, omitting
Φ. 1010). See also the following notes.
dyos δὲ.. κεκτήσεται wo (Eteocles)
though he lost his life will have the
worship (of his deed). The clause is
in form a parenthesis. The object of it
is to satisfy religious feeling by show-
ing that the champion of gods will not
go unrewarded. For dyos (σέβας) see
the Lex. s. v. ἄγος. It means more than
mere burial ; the tomb of Eteocles would
receive special honour; he would and
did in fact become a ἥρως. The attempt
to disprove the existence of dyos (as-
pirated) as distinct from ἄγος pollution,
against both ancient tradition and ety-
mological probability (cf. ἅγιος), seems
wholly mistaken. It is almost indispen-
sable here, if τοῦδε be referred to Eteocles
(on which see previous note); though it
is just possible, reading ἄγος, to join the
clause with ws ὄντ᾽ dvacrarijpa—and
though he (Polynices) died, he shall still
bear hts sin. But then ὁδὲ would have
been inserted here instead of in the fol-

120

ΑἸΣΧΎΛΟΥ

θεῶν πατρῴων, οὗς ἀτιμάσας ὅδε

στράτευμ᾽ ἐπακτὸν ἐμβαλὼν ἥρει πόλιν.

IOIO

of wn , > e 9 9 σὰ aA
οὕτω πετηνῶν τόνδ᾽ ὑπ᾽ οἰωνῶν δοκεῖ
/ 9
ταφέντ᾽ ἀτίμως τοὐπιτίμιον λαβεῖν,
καὶ μήθ᾽ ὁμαρτεῖν τυμβοχόα χηρώματα

, 5» 9 / f 3
μὴτ ὀξυμόλποις προσσέβειν οἰμώγμασιν,
εἶναι δ᾽ ἄτιμον ἐκφορᾶς φίλων ὕπο.

1013. χειρώματα.

lowing verse. In Mss. ἄγος or ἄγος is
written without regard to the sense.

1009. θεῶν πατρῴων. The main sen-
tence is resumed, θεῶν being repeated
from v. 1007, and the speaker turns
again to Polynices (note 6de).—These
clauses are commonly punctuated, with
the reading ἄγος, thus: ef μὴ θεῶν τις
ἐμποδὼν ἔστη δορὶ τῷ τοῦδε (sc. Πολυνεί-
Kous). ἄγος δὲ καὶ θανὼν κεκτήσεται θεῶν
πατρῴων, οὖς ἀτιμάσας ὅδε κτλ. In that
case θεῶν πατρῴων depends on ἄγος ‘his
sin against the gods of his fathers’; but,
apart from the difficulties of τοῦδε and
ὅδε, there is, to my ear, something very
flat and unsatisfactory in θεῶν πατρῴων
following so closely after θεῶν, unless it
is justified, as in the above arrangement,
by rhetorical purpose.

IolI. τόνδε, implying an ἐκεῖνον, is
inserted here to mark the contrast be-
tween the olwvol of Polynices and the
ὄρνεα of Eteocles (see on v. 1002), and
between the two manners of ‘burial’ (see
on v. 998). οὕτω qualifies ragévra, and
is explained by πετηνῶν ὑπ᾽ οἰωνῶν.

1013. τυμβοχόα χηρώματα.---τυμβο-
χύα χοήματα or τυμβόχωστα χώματα,
Hartung: τυμβοχόα μειλίγματα Naber.
These changes are too bold to accept,
but the Ms. cannot be right. It has
been taken either for ‘libations poured
by hands uponthe grave’, or for ‘mounded
graves made by the hand’. For the first
sense of τυμβοχόος, pouring libations, there
is no authority : τυμβοχοεῖν is ‘to pile a
grave’ not ‘to pour a libation’. The
only known meaning of xetpéw is ‘to do

1015

IOIS. ἄτιμονᾳ (δ᾽ Ὁ) εἶναι δ᾽.

violence upon, to subdu2, overpower’;
that it should mean ‘to make something
with the hand’ is perhaps conceivable,
but there is no point here in the mention
of the hands.
speak of a cairn (τύμβος) or of libations
as ‘accompanying’ or ‘following’ the
dead: ὁμαρτεῖν is used of fersons or
trains of persons. This last consideration
indicates that the true word is χηρώ-
ματα mourners, bereaved ones, see χῆρος,
xnpbw. The word xpos is specially ap-
plied to women (cf. v. 313), and points
directly to the sisters and their friends;
for the use of the form in -μα ina personal
sense see Eur. Aizpp. τι ἁγνοῦ Πιτθέως
παιδεύματα (Hippolytus) etc. τυμβοχόα
will then be part of the predicate—and
that no mourners go with him to make
him a tomb. And we thus have a sub-
ject, which is wanted, to the verb in v.
1o14. The form χήρωμα is not extant,
but may be inferred from χηρόω with as
much certainty as a part of the verb itself.
—The conjecture of m in v. 313, κεχει-
ρωμένας, shows the facility of the error.

1014. προσσέβειν honour him further
than they have already done in the fore-
going θρῆνος, the proceedings of the
sisters having been reported to the
authorities.

1015. εἶναι δ᾽ ἄτιμον but let him go
unattended by any friendly train. A
prose writer would have written ἀφεῖναι.
—The MS. itself shows that εἶναε (with-
out aspirate) is an error. As the un-
emphatic εἶναι should not stand first in
the clause the order was changed to

And lastly, it is absurd to-

ETTTA ETT! OHBAZ 121

τοιαῦτ᾽ ἔδοξεν τῷδε Καδμείων τέλει.

AN.

ἐγὼ δὲ Καδμείων ye προστάταις λέγω"

ἣν μὴ τις ἄλλος τόνδε συνθάπτειν θέλῃ,
ἐγώ σφε θάψω κἀνὰ κίνδυνον βαλῶ

θάψασ᾽ ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἐμόν, οὐδ᾽ αἰσχύνομαι

1020

ἔχουσ᾽ ἄπιστον τήνδ᾽ ἀναρχίαν πόλει"
δεινὸν τὸ κοινὸν σπλάγχνον, οὗ πεφύκαμεν,
μητρὸς ταλαίνης κὠπὸ δυστήνου πατρός.
τοιγὰρ θέλουσ᾽ ἄκοντι κοινώνει κακῶν,

ψυχή, θανόντι Sica συγγόνῳ φρενί.

1025

1024. κακὰν (?).

ἄτιμον δ᾽ εἶναι, and this, to restore metre,
into ἄτιμον εἶναι δ᾽. But the displacement
of εἷναι emphasizes it as much as if it
stood first. The change of subject also,
from the mourners to the corpse, is in-
appropriate and confuses the sense.—
ἐκφορᾶς depends upon ἄτιμον deprived.
For the dependence of ὑπὸ φίλων on
ἐκφορᾶς see v. 806.

1016. Καδμείων τέλει the Cadmean
government. But why rede? Perhaps it
is intended (like τῆσδε Καδμείας πόλεως
Ψ. 997) to mark the local basis of authority
—‘the government which here com-
mands’. The parallel however scarcely
bears examination. The land is locally
present, the magistrates are not. I am
strongly inclined to read τοιαῦτ᾽ ἔδοξεν
wade thus hath it been determined to deal
with these twain. ‘The accusative τῶδε
is easily explained by the verbs implied
in τοιαῦτα, which stands in the case of
Eteocles for θάπτειν (v. 999), in the
case of Polynices for ἔξω βαλεῖν (uv. 1005);
or to put the same thing in a less correct
way, the verb ποιεῖν may be supplied
from the general tenor of the previous
speech.—@5oé’ ἐν τῷδε Lachmann. This is
unexceptionable; but perhaps the formal
style of the proclamation requires that
this summary should refer to the whole.

1017. προστάταις a vague word (in
Athenian politics not an official title but

describing the chief man of a party, par-
ticularly of the δῆμος) and therefore con-
venient as a description of the δήμου
πρόβουλοι : see v. 997. In the action of
Antigone as Aeschylus represents it there
is mixed with affection a touch of royal
pride and indignation thoroughly natural
to the orphan princess of the fallen house.
The addition of γε does not import a
strong respect. Zey shall not stand in
her way.

1019. dvd κίνδυνον βαλῶ t.¢. ἀνραβαλώ
κίνδυνον I will risk the danger. Paley
cites Thuc. Iv. 85 κίνδυνον τοσόνδε avep-
ρίψαμεν, ib. V. 103 τοῖς és ἅπαν τὸ ὑπάρχον
ἀναρριπτοῦσι, Aristoph. frag. 545 πᾶς ἀν-
ἔρριμμαι κύβος. The metaphor, as the
last citation shows, is from a cast of dice.

1020. οὐδ᾽ αἰσχύνομαι ἔχοισα ἐξ
shames me not to be guilty of...: cf. ἔχειν
αἰτίαν. ἄπιστον... πόλει this disobedient
rebellion against my country; πόλει de-
pends on ἄπιστον, which takes the con-
struction of πείθομαι. See vv. 827, 893.

1024. κακῶν γέεε. ----θέλουσ᾽ ἄκοντι:
take willingly thy suffering part with
him who nothing wills. ἄκων here is
simply the negative of ἑκών. As between
the living a service rendered ἄκοντι, to
the unwilling, is a service that will not
be rewarded; so a service rendered to
the dead, who can will nothing, must be
equally disinterested.

122

AIZXYAOY

τούτω δὲ σάρκας οὐδὲ κοιλογάστορες
λύκοι σπάσονται' μὴ δοκησάτω τινί.
τάφον γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ κατασκαφὰς ἐγώ,
γυνή περ οὖσα, τῷδε μηχανήσομαι

1027. σπάσονται corr. by erasure to πάσονται.

1026. τούτω us two: she points to
the corpse by which she stands and to
herself, and speaks, κοινωνοῦσα κακῶν (see
the preceding verse), as if they had but
one common interest. τούτω is the direct
accusative to σπάσονται, and σάρκας the
so-called ‘accusative of the part affected’.
—The later mss. destroy this line by
substituting τούτον. Ifa possessive were
required at all we should read τούτῳ. But
the whole point lies in the use of the
dual.—ovSt κοιλογάστορες λύκοι r0/
even ravening wolves, or as we should
say, mot ravening wolves. The implied
sense is ‘much less, as ye threaten, the
fowls of the air’. Cf. νυ. 602 μηδὲ προσ-
βαλεῖν πύλαις not so much as attack the
gate at all. Without οὐδὲ the expression
κοιλογάστορες λύκοι would be exaggerated
and out of place.—The supposition that
something is lost here depends on the
mis-translation of οὐδὲ by neither.—owd-
σονται. The middle voice ‘tear for
themselves’ signifies that they tear to
devour. The original reading of the Ms.,
retained by Hermann, seems in every
way preferable to the correction rdcovrat,
a very weak word for this place.

1027. τινί. In lanpuage of a threaten-
ing kind, the person a¢ whom it is spoken
is often described with studious vague-
ness as tis. See on v. 389 and cf. the
German use of the third person for the
second in similar circumstances. Here
and in w 1031 τις is the council and
their representative, the herald.—Ze mot
our decree-makers so presume!

1028. τάφον yap. The use of γάρ
here is elliptical (7 speak of protecting
the body from violation); for as for burial,
that etc. That this is the meaning (and
not ‘for I will bury him’) is shown

by the order of the words and also by the
sense: Antigone could not of course her-
self bury the body so as to protect it
from birds and beasts, and does not pro-
pose todo so. She would protect it by
watching; and as for ‘burial’ in the
religious sense of the term, that, as she
scornfully says, is an easy matter.—avr@
...TQ8e with only this, just with thts,
2.5. with her woman’s dress, to the κόλπος
(sinus or fold) of which she points as
she speaks. See on wv. 850. She ex-
plains her meaning in v. 1030. The
expression is intentionally contemptuous.
To what purpose is it to forbid burial,
when the handful of earth necessary for
the rite can be carried in a maiden’s
robe? The requirement of religion was
satisfied by the mere sprinkling of dust
three times upon the corpse. Cf. Soph.
Ant. 255 6 μὲν yap ἠφάνιστο, τυμβήρης
μὲν ov, λεπτὴ δ᾽, ἄγος φεύγοντος ὡς
ἐπῆν κόνις, and 26. 429 ἐμφέρει κόνιν...

χοαῖσι τρισπόνδοισι τὸν νέκυν στέφει (of
the ‘burial’ of Polynices by Antigone),

Hor. Od. 1. 28. 36 eniecto ter pulvere.

The effect is heightened by the ironical
use of κατασκαφαί, the word of the
herald himself (v. 999), although not ap-

propriate to the simple symbolic rite in-

tended by Antigone. There isa similar
irony in τάφον.. φέρουσα ‘carrying a

grave’, 2.¢, carrying the sufficient means

of burial.—avur} (for αὐτῷ) Pierson, Her-

mann, Dindorf and others, taking τῷδε as

for him, in which case αὐτῷ would be

superfluous. Others, as Paley, join τῷδε

rightly with κόλπῳ but take αὐτῷ to mean

Πολυνείκει; but even so αὐτῷ is un-

necessary and not used after the manner

of Aeschylus.

es _ >|

ETTTA ΕΠῚ OHBAZ. 123
κόλπῳ φέρουσα Bvocivov πεπλώματος, 1030
καὐτὴ καλύψω. μηδέ τῳ δόξῃ πάλιν'
θάρσει παρέσται μηχανὴ δραστήριος.
ΚΗ. αὐδῶ πόλιν σε μὴ βιάξεσθαι τάδε.
ΑΝ. αὐδῶ σε μὴ περισσὰ κηρύσσειν ἐμοί.
ΚΗ. τραχύς γε μέντοι δῆμος ἐκφυγὼν κακά. 1035
ΑΝ, στράχυν᾽, ἄθαπτος δ᾽ οὗτος οὐ γενήσεται.
ΚΗ. ἀλλ᾽ ὃν πόλις στυγεῖ, σὺ τιμήσεις τάφῳ;
ΑΝ. ἤδη τὰ τοῦδ᾽ οὐ διατετίμηται θεοῖς.
1032. θάρσει. παρέσται.
1030. βυσσίνουν. The delicacy of effect of unconscious reminiscence, but it

the fabric is an additional touch of sar-
casm, importing the small weight that it
would bear. It should be noted, that
Antigone does not intend concealment, as
is shown by the sequel, and indeed by
this plain declaration. The sole point of
her language is to mark the futility of
prohibiting what is so easily done.—From
the importance of the rode (ovppa) of
Antigone in this action, the place at
Thebes shown as the scene of the burial
probably derived the name Zuppa ᾽Αντι-
γόνης (Paus. ΙΧ. 25. 2). Pausanias refers
it to the dragging (σύρει) of the body:
but σύρειν is not the right word.

1031. καλύψω will cover him.—pydt
τῳ δόξῃ πάλιν. Let not our masters de-
cree to the contrary, for courage will find
an effective means, if this should fail.
She pretends to expect a decree against
the method she proposes. Note the
distinction between μὴ δοκησάτω in v.
1027 and μὴ δόξῃ here.

1032. θάρσει παρέσται, It is not
easy to choose between this punctuation
(Porson) where θάρσει is the dative of
θάρσος and that of the Ms., where θάρσει
is the imperative of Oapoéw, never fear
or be assured. The irony of this is quite
in keeping with the context, but perhaps
the other is better. The same words
θάρσει, παρέσται, occur in Soph. O. C.
726, where θάρσει is the imperative. The
resemblance may be accidental, or the

slightly strengthens the probability of the
MS. punctuation. -

1035. Stern is a people's temper in the
hour when a peril ts past. As has often
been pointed out, the whole contemporary
history of the Athenian democracy in its
rapid rise after the Persian wars is a
comment upon this verse.

1036. Jt may be yet more stern, and
still he that lies here shall not go un-
buried. Literally, ‘exasperate their ex-
asperation (τράχυνε τὸν τραχύν), and etc.’

1037. ἀλλὰ. Here, as often in alter-
native verses, one speech is continued by
the next. Antigone might have said
ἄθαπτος οὗτος οὐ γενήσεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ
τιμήσω τάφῳ. The reply of the herald is
this second clause, with the pronoun
changed, and with an_interrogative
tone. Cf. Eur. Afed. 326 KP. οὐ yap ἂν
πείσαις woré. MH. ἀλλ᾽ ἐξελᾶς με κοὐ-
δὲν αἰδέσει Atras;—The rhythm of this
verse is noticeable: it has in effect no
caesura, and must be divided in the
middle. This, with the divisions after the
first two feet, gives to it an equally dis-
tributed emphasis suitable to a grave
warning. Sophocles uses a like device
for a like purpose in the famous line
of the Philoctetes (5890) EM. dpa τί ποιεῖς,
παῖ. NE. σκοπῶ κἀγὼ πάλαι. So also
nearly in v. 10 44.---τιμήσεις reward.

1038. Already he hath his reward
without distinction—from the gods, or He

1040

124 AIZXYAOY
KH. οὔ, πρίν ye χώραν τήνδε κινδύνῳ βαλεῖν.
ΑΝ. παθὼν κακῶς κακοῖσιν ἀντημείβετο.
ΚΗ. ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἅπαντας ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς τόδ᾽ ἔργον ἦν.
ΑΝ, ἔρις περαίνει μῦθον ὑστάτη θεῶν.

ἐγὼ δὲ θάψω rovde’ μὴ μακρηγόρει.
KH. ἀλλ᾽ αὐτόβουλος ἴσθ᾽, ἀπεννέπω δ᾽ ἐγώ.

is not distinguished now—in the reward
of the gods.—This disputed verse is ex-
plained, I think, correctly though not
very lucidly by a scholium,—7d περὲ
τῆς τιμῆς τούτου ὑπὸ θεῶν κέκριται. ‘The
question of Polynices’ τιμή has been de-
cided by heaven’. The distinction made
by the state’s decree between the bro-
thers proceeds on the religious ground
that one is the friend, the other the
enemy of the country’s gods (see the
speech of the herald assim, and note
especially ἀτιμάσας v. 1009, ἄτιμος v.
1015). It might be objected—and the
herald is careful to meet this objection
by the way (v. 1008)—that by their
equal fate this distinction is divinely
refuted. Antigone revives the objection,
observing bitterly that, if she rewards
the foe and the friend alike, she is but
following the divine precedent (ἤδη... θεοῖς).
She speaks rather as a daughter of the
house of Labdacus than as a citizen, and
much in the spirit of Eteocles himself
(see v. 689). Wieseler (and Weil), taking
the same view, proposes to read ov δίχα
τετίμηται, but this is not necessary. The
preposition d:a- means distinctively, as
in διαφέρειν. There is a certain irony
in the use of τιμή, which is strictly
neutral (payment), and includes, like the
English reward, both reward in the
limited sense and punishment.—Paley
omits ov, taking τὰ τοῦδε διατετίμηται for
‘his honour is at an end’, and supposing
the sense to be ‘Since the gods have
ceased to honour him, I must honour him’.
This gives an equally possible sense of
διατιμᾶν, but does not satisfy the em-
phatic ἤδη, besides supposing a not very
probable corruption. He assumes, and so

have others, that the Schol. read the text
without ov, but this is by no means clear.
There are several other conjectures (see
Wecklein) but none of them are satis-
factory, nor does any change appear
necessary.

1039. Ais case was equal, until he
had imperilled this town. Literally, He
was nol distinguished (ov διετετίμητο)
before etc. Polynices and Eteocles were
both under the curse of heaven pro-
nounced upon their family, and both have |
died accordingly. But the treason of
Polynices against the city distinguishes his
case and still awaits punishment.

1040. He was seeking vengeance for
the wrong he had suffered: his banish-
ment.

1041. ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς for the offence of one,
Eteocles.

1042. Of all the gods Contention hath
ever the last word: literally ‘ Contention
is the last of the gods to finish her say’.
Apparently a proverb meaning ‘One may
go on disputing for ever’, and perhaps
founded on some allegorical story like
that cited in vw. 210.—Blomfield omits
this verse, to preserve the alternation.
Wecklein observes truly that it would
be better to omit the next. But there is
no reason for omitting either. The alter-
cation is cut short, and Antigone turns to
resume the interrupted obsequies.

1044. ἀλλ᾽ αὐτόβουλος ἴσθι 7.4. θάπτε
ἀλλ᾽ αὐτόβουλος ἴσθι (see on Ψ. 1035). On
thine own peril then, and against my
prohibition! Literally ‘Do it, but be
thine own counsellor, while I forbid
thee’. Here the herald, having dis-
charged himself of responsibility, leaves
the stage.

ΕΠΤΑ ΕΠῚ OHBAZ.

ΧΟ. φεῦ φεῦ.

125

1045

ὦ μεγάλαυχοι καὶ φθερσιγενεῖς

Κῆρες ᾿Ερινύες, ait’ Οἰδιπόδα .
γένος ὠλέσατε πρύμνοθεν οὕτως,

τί πάθω; τί δὲ δρῶ; τί δὲ μήσωμαι;

a / / \ ’
πῶς τολμήσω μῆὴτε σὲ κλαίειν

1050

μήτε προπέμπειν ἐπὶ τύμβῳ;
ἀλλὰ φοβοῦμαι κἀποτρέπομαι

δεῖμα πολιτών.

σύ γε μὴν πολλῶν πενθητήρων

τεύξῃ" κεῖνος δ᾽ ὁ τάλας ayoos

1055

μονόκλαυτον ἔχων θρῆνον ἀδελφῆς

εἶσιν.

ΗΜ.

, a φ \ !
τίς ἂν οὖν τὰ πίθοιτο;
δράτω te πόλις καὶ μὴ δράτω

τοὺς κλαίοντας Πολυνείκη᾽

ἡμεῖς γὰρ ἵμεν καὶ συνθάψομεν

1060

vd ,ὔ Ἃ \ a
aide προπομποί. καὶ yap γενεᾷ

1049. δ᾽ épw. 1056. θρῆνος.

1045—1057. This is perhaps divided
between various singers. The Ms. has
the mark of the ‘semi-chorus’ at συ.
1045, 1064, and ‘paragraphi’ at wv.
1049, 1054, 1058.

1045. dev expresses indignant com-
plaint at the vengeance of the fiends,
whom even complete triumph has not
contented.

1046. μεγάλανχοι καὶ φθερσιγενεῖς.
These epithets are to be closely joined—
who boast the triumph of a family de-
stroyed.

1048. πρύμνοθεν. πρέμνοθεν Is. Voss.
See on v. 71.

1049. δὲ δρῶ. Later copies. The ἐρῶ
of the MS. is scarcely good Greek, and
note the antithesis ra@w—dpw.

1054. γε μὴν and yet. They are
divided between fear and sympathy,
passing backwards and forwards as each
feeling prevails.—ob...reb§y. This clause
would in English be put in a subordinate
form.—And yet, while thou shalt have
many mourners, he alas! must go ete.

1057. πείθοιτο.

1058. dpdrw πόλις.

1057. Whocan render such an obedience
as that? τὰ is the demonstrative and
emphatic.

1058. δράτω τι ἃ euphemism for ‘do
some hurt’. Let the city punish or not
punish etc. Cf. Eur. Aled. 1304 μή μοι
(παῖδάς) τι δρῶσιν ol προσήκοντες γένει.
The word τι, accidentally omitted from
its resemblance in uncials to the following
II, was restored by a critic cited by
Elmsley on Eur. Med. ἢ. ¢.

1061. γενεᾷ 17; respect of blood, in-
asmuch as the dead is Καδμογενής, and
this bond of nature cannot be dissolved
by the shifting determinations of political
law. This antithesis, with the substi-
tution of a τύραννος for the πόλις, is
expanded in the Antigone of Sophocles ;
see Ant. 453 οὐδὲ σθένειν τοσοῦτον ᾧό-
μὴν τὰ σὰ κηρύγμαθ' ὥστ᾽ ἄγραπτα
κἀσφαλῆ θεῶν νόμιμα δύνασθαι θνὴη-
τὸν ὄνθ᾽ ὑπερδραμεῖν κτλ.---κοινὸν τόδ᾽
ἄχος. The words admit two meanings,
(1) κοινὸν καὶ τῷ - Πολυνείκει and (2)
κοψὸν καὶ ἡμῖν. But the context de-

126 AIZXYAOY ETITA ETT! OHBAS.
κοινὸν TOO ἄχος, καὶ πόλις ἄλλως
ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐπαινεῖ τὰ δίκαια.

ΗΜ. ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἅμα τῷδ᾽, ὥσπερ τε πόλις

καὶ τὸ δίκαιον ξυνεπαινεῖ.

1065

μετὰ yap μάκαρας καὶ Διὸς ἰσχὺν

ὅδε Καδμείων ἤρυξε πόλιν
μηδ᾽ ἀλλοδαπῷ κύματι φωτῶν
κατακλυσθῆναι τὰ μάλιστα.

1067
1069

1070

1067—69. πόλιν | μὴ ἀνατραπῆναι | μηδ᾽.

cides for the first; 7» respect of blood our
mourning belongs to both, not ‘we also are
bound to mourn’. Their argument is
that Polynices must have mourners, as
well as Eteocles, not that they are them-
selves bound to take some part in the
ceremony.—A comparison with the an-
tistrophe (v. 1068) shows that there is
either a defect here or an interpolation
there of two anapaestic feet. Ritschl,
Hermann and others suppose a defect
here, but it would be difficult to insert
anything without injuring the sense (τῇ
Καδμογενεῖ Ritschl, τῇ Καδμείᾳ Her-
mann) nor is the supposed loss accounted
for. See on v. 1069.

1066. μετὰ μάκαρας ... ὅδε. ... τὰ μα-
λιστα: after the blessed gods...he more
than any other etc.

1069. μηδ᾽ ἀλλοδαπῴ κύματι φωτῶν κα-
τακλυσθῆναι so that notevenaseaofstrange

Jolk could overwhelm her. The Argive
host was in itself ἀλλοδαπός, composed of
strangers to one another, not merely alien
to the Cadmeans, so that the phrase notes
the remarkable fortune of the city in
having been saved from a great con-
federacy.— The words μὴ ἀνατραπῆναι
are an interpolation, due to the same
error which has Jed to the supposition
that something is lost at wv. 1026—the
assumption that μηδὲ (or οὐδέ) means nor
and requires a negative clause preceding.
Here the clause has actually been sup-
plied. But it is detected by the metre
(see on vw 1061) and also by the sense,
for the irrelevant ἀνατραπῆναι spoils the
metaphor of the ship and the storm,
which is pursued throughout the play
from the very commencement (see on z.
780) and here finally resumed in the
conclusion.

APPENDIX I.

On the Rhythmical Correspondence of Strophe and Antistrophe.

I HAVE stated in the Jutroduction the principle which has been
followed in the choric parts of the foregoing text. As a rule almost
without exception, I have admitted no alteration of the ms., however
slight, which depends for its justification on metrical considerations
only. I have adopted this plan, not on the assumption that a text so
formed cannot possibly be further improved, but because the formation
of such a text seems to be necessary as a step towards the solution of
an important question. That question is—What does the ms. really in-
dicate as to the kind of correspondence between strophe and antistrophe
observed by Aeschylus; and, in particular, what exceptions must be
made to the rule of exact correspondence by syllables and quantities ?
In the present state of the average Aeschylean text, it is difficult, not to
say impossible, to study this question fairly. Although no one would
assert that the rule is perfectly absolute, it has been freely used as a
general presumption; and a long succession of editors have brought the
text into conformity with it, wherever this could be easily done: in this
way the case has been prejudiced in those instances, still very nume-
rous, where it cannot be easily done, and they have either been emended
by violence or treated as irremediably wrong. Upon this presumption,
thus established, more than upon anything else, rests the belief that the
choric parts of Aeschylus are extremely corrupt. And upon this point
it is desirable to be perfectly clear. If, in the original text of this play,
the strophe and antistrophe corresponded, with few and simple excep-
tions, by syllables, no reliance whatever can be placed upon our Ms.
in most of the lyric portions; and we may say at once that they have
been destroyed. Whole sfvophae occur, in which not more than half
the lines, on this hypothesis, have been copied rightly; and if care-
less or wilful alteration has gone such lengths as this, the task of ex-
planation or restoration may as well be given up. I will say at once

128 APPENDIX I.

that in my judgment there is no ground for this conclusion. I believe
that for the most part the lyric portions of the text have been copied as
accurately as the rest, that is to say, with errors not numerous and
almost always minute; and as a corollary to this, I believe that the
correspondence of strophe and antistrophe is not always an exact corre-
spondence of syllables and quantities, but frequently varies from it, of
course within such limits as to preserve the correspondence of rhythm.
I propose here to notice all the variations which occur in our play, but
first, as a good specimen case, we will take out of their order the last
strophe and antistrophe of the opening Chorus.

151 ἰὼ παναρκεῖς θεοί, στρ.
4Ν ld La 4 fed
iw τέλειοι τέλειαΐ TE γᾶς
τᾶσδέ γε πυργοφύλακες,
πόλιν δορίπονον μὴ προδῶθ᾽
ε ‘ “
155 ἐτεροφώνῳ στρατῷ.
Ud f ao ao
κλύετε παρθένων κλύετε πανδίκως
χειροτόνους Actas.
ἰὼ φίλοι δαίμονες ἄντ.
λυτήριοί τ᾽, ἀμφιβάντες πόλιν
160 δείξαθ᾽ ὡς φιλοπόλιες,
μέλεσθε δ᾽ ἱερῶν δημίων,
’ , > 2 :
μελόμενοι δ᾽ ἀρήξατε
φιλοθύτων δέ τοι πόλεως ὀργίων
μνήστορες ἔστε μοι.

This is the Ms. text, with the exception of λυτήριοί τ᾽ (Seidler) for
λυτήριοι 1n 159. It exhibits no difficulty of meaning; for the objec-
tions which have been taken to ἑτεροφώνῳ in 155 would never have
been entertained but for the supposed evidence of the metre. Of the
seven pairs of lines, four have exact correspondence and three have
not. As might be expected @ priori, assuming correspondence of
rhythm, the restoration of syllabic correspondence is not difficult « 20
a certain point. In 153 we omit ye with the later copies (to the injury
of the sense), in 160 we substitute φιλοπόλεις for φιλοπόλιες, and in 163
πόλεος for πόλεως. If these changes were completely successful, they
might appear plausible: but the only result of them is to leave us with
an irreducible case—155 ἑτεροφώνῳ στρατῷ answering to 162 μελόμενοι
δ᾽ apygare, which accordingly, after many unsuccessful attempts (see
Wecklein’s Appendix), is left standing ; and we remain uncertain whether,
with so much to correct and something which we cannot correct, we
have got anything like Aeschylus after all. But the truth is, that the

APPENDIX I. 129

metrical variation between 155 and 162 is of a kind which occurs again
and again, and these very verses contain another case of it. The
verse ἑτερο-[φών-[ῳ orpa-|r@ is a verse of four feet and four rhythmical
beats, and so is the verse pedopev-loe δ᾽ apiygar-|e. For the purpose
of rhythm and in verse intended for music, a long syllable, held
for the necessary time, is a perfectly good equivalent for a trochee’.
So also neither 153 τἄσδέ ye | rupy-lopvAax-les, nor 160 δείξαθ᾽ | ὡς
ftA-loroXr-les, requires any alteration: in the second foot of 153 we
have a variety of the same kind as that just noticed ; of the correspond-
ence between the first feet (in quantities, το ὦ =—vw) we shall find
other examples hereafter. To the ear it needs no justification, and
appears irregular only because the notation of “long” and “short”
syllables is inadequate, as many writers on metre have perceived, to
the representation of metres intended for music. Between πόλεως and
πόλεος in 163 the choice is metrically and in every other way indifferent.
On the one hand these two forms are certainly sometimes confused in
the ms. and may be so here; on the other hand such correspondences
as κλύετε πανδίκως to πόλεως ὀργίων (Scanning πόλεως as ὦ —) are quite
common in verses of this rhythm (dochmuiac, see e.g. 551, 614). Even
the insertion of τ᾿ in 159 is at most a probable change: we cannot
know that there was not a musical division after λυτήριοι which protected
the hiatus; and the conjunction is not necessary to the sense. Now
although taken singly each of these variations may be insignificant
enough, they become very important collectively in their bearing upon
such a reading as ἑτεροφώνῳ στρατῷ: In Wecklein’s Appendix are men-
tioned no less than sixteen corrections, all unsatisfactory, proposed
simply with the object of bringing vv. 155 and 162 into conformity of
syllables and quantities. And further, in this single passage of 14 lines
we have 5 lines requiring correction upon metrical theory, and not

1 This type of rhythm (syncope) is of
course familiar enough in its application
to the scansion of single verses; v. 154
e.g. has the rhythm πό-]λιν | δορίπο-]
voy | μὴ προ-δῶθ᾽, with two ‘syncopated’
feet (see the excellent section on versifi-
cation in Hadley’s Greek Grammar).
It only remains to apply the same princi-
ple to strophic correspondence. In this
case the corresponding verse 161 has
similar feet. But it is implied by the
very nature of ‘syncope’ that such cor-
respondence is not necessary ; and that

V. AL,

we should expect to find, as we do find,
cases in which a ‘syncopated’ foot answers
to one not ‘syncopated’. So also in
the case of the ‘trochaic dactyl’. In
short, lyric verses can only be scanned as
verses on principles which involve the
deduction, that strophic correspondence
need not be syllabic correspondence. The
equivalence of -~, 4-, ~~~, and -~~
is assumed by the rules of the common
iambic senarius. ‘Syncope’ applies to
lyric metres only.

130 APPENDIX I.

one, or at most one, which is open to doubt on any other ground.
Nor are these figures exceptional. To my own mind the figures
themselves are almost sufficient evidence that the metrical theory in
question cannot be right. It is surely improbable that any series of
copyists should be so methodically careless as to make error after error
injurious to the metre only, and leaving not merely words but sense.
If it be argued that the copyists knew the forms of the words and
understood the sense, but did not know and did not preserve the lyric
metres, it must be answered that this is not so. They make errors
enough to show that they did not know the forms of the words accu-
rately, and that they often did not understand the sense. How then
did they contrive so frequently to spoil the metre without spoiling any-
thing else ?

We will now take the lyric parts of the play in their regular order,
beginning with the entrance-song or

Parodos. Vv. 78—164.

The metrical arrangement and distribution of parts in this piece
have been perhaps more disputed than any other problem of the same
kind in Aeschylus. Upwards of twenty different hypotheses are
enumerated by Wecklein in his Appendix. From this great variety of
opinion it is reasonable to conclude that beyond a narrow limit the
evidence fails altogether; and this is so decidedly my own opinion that
I shall confine my remarks here almost entirely to the question which I
think answerable—Is there any reason to suppose that the text, as we
have it, has sustained extensive injury? It is a curious fact, and in
itself an indication in favour of the ms., that in the chorus, as we find
it, the marks of regular structure increase from the beginning to the
end. This may be said without prejudice to any point in dispute.
Vu. 78—105 cannot be arranged in strophae without very considerable
change ; on the other hand from 134 to the end the structure is clearly
strophic and at least approximately regular. Between these limits lies
a passage, 106—133, of which the character is doubtful. Comparing
106—108 with 120—122, 110 with 124, 112 with 126, 113 with 127,
116—119 with 130—133, it is difficult not to suppose, with the majority
of critics, that we have here a pair of strophae’. Yet it is clear on the
other hand that, if strophae, they are either very irregular or very cor-
rupt. To determine between these alternatives, we ought, it would

1 According to some vv. 106—133 are, without strophic structure. See Weck-
like the parts preceding, mere recitative _lein’s Appendix.

APPENDIX 1 131

seem, to look at the sense. If the irregularity is due to corruption, it
will betray itself in the meaning as well as in the metre. This test is
decisive against the hypothesis of corruption. Some of the most
irregular verses (6 9. 109 and 123) are precisely the most admirable and
the least open to suspicion of error. From these facts the reader must
draw his own conclusion. For my own part I see no difficulty in
accepting the whole chorus as it stands'; vv. 106—133 I take to be
what they appear to be, a passage of transition between the confusion
of the first part, and the regularity of the conclusion. They are strophae,
in which more liberty than usual has been taken in adapting the words
to the music; and erhaps, though this is a point beyond our means of
knowledge, certain parts of them were not sung to strophic music, but
recited as interruptions, the movements or music serving to explain
to the ear the relations of the parts. The transition of structure from
broken recitative to the regularity of strophae may be presumed to have
corresponded with a change in the disposition of the Chorus from the
confusion of their entrance to the posture of supplication, in which they
are found upon the re-entrance of Eteocles. With this vague and
general conception we must rest content. For the attempts which have
been made to attain greater precision I must refer the reader to Wecklein’s
Appendix. Almost any of them may appear plausible, if we make
suitablé assumptions as to corruptions of the text, and the objection to
all of them is, that there is no sound reason for believing it to be
corrupt.

To come to details :—the passage in recitative (78—105) is written
mainly in the dochmiac rhythm (of which the base is the rhythm vt++u+
or equivalents for it, such as --υυπυπ, VU eum, VU VUE, etc).
It was probably distributed among various parts or single voices of the
chorus, but in what manner or among how many singers it is not possible
to say.

In the following section (106—133), under the uncertainty as to
how much is strophic, correspondences must be noted with great
caution ; but the following points are of interest :-—

106 θεοὶ πολιάοχοι-- 120 σύ τ᾽ ὦ Διογενὲς. These are both dochmiac
feet, θεοὶ being a monosyllable. Similarly ἱκέσιον λόχον, καχλάζει
πνοαῖς, Πάλλας ὅ θ᾽ ἵππιος, ἐπίλυσιν φονῶν, “Apeos ὀρόμενον, are all
dochmiac feet and equivalents for each other. All these forms will

1 The proof of interpolation in v. 133 mis-accentuations and what may be called
rests on grounds independent of metre normal mis-spellings, such as λύκιος for
and does not suggest any general doubts. Avxecos. But these do not affect the
There are of course a certain number of question.

9---2

132 APPENDIX I.

be found frequently and without distinction in strophic passages of this
rhythm’.

118 δορυσσόοις cayais=132 στρατῷ δαΐῳ. This is a particularly
Interesting and noticeable form. In the normal dochmius ot++vu4+,
the essential part is the three beats; it is obviously possible, without
changing the character of the rhythm, to introduce an occasional foot
in which the second beat, as well as the first and third, has a pre-
liminary ‘short’, thus, v.4v4uU+. The principle of the variation is
exactly the same as that in 155=162. It is easy én this instance to
restore syllabic conformity by writing δορυσσοῖς, but in 219 διὰ θεῶν
πόλιν = 225 ποταίνιον κλύουσ- this cannot be done without violent
alteration, and in 206 μηδ᾽ ἐπίδοιμι τάνδ᾽ =213 -ot τὰν ἀμήχανον it
cannot be done without injury to the sense. Other examples will be
found as we proceed.

118 πύλαις ἑβδόμαις -- 132 στόνων avras. This is another variation
upon the same principle. »-+VU++ for v++vu+. So probably φόνον
χαλινοί in 116 and πελαζόμεσθα in 130 were sung as dochmiac feet
(υ ὦ -- -2)ὴ. Inthe same lines κινύρονται (υ + ++) and ἀπύουσαι (+ υ + +)
may also have equal rhythms. Seidler reads ἀυτοῦσαι for syllabic con-
formity, but in a passage exhibiting so much irregularity, it is arbitrary
to introduce conformity in a particular place by a change which has no
warrant from the sense.

Of the rhythm of 109=123, 111 =125 and 114—115 =128—129
nothing can be said but that the words, without musical or rhythmical
notation, give no evidence as to how they were sung. ‘The words
neither prove nor disprove that the music had equal rhythms. Syllabic
conformity can be restored, even approximately, only by re-writing the
lines*. In 106 the erasure throws doubt on the reading. If it is
correct, 1t appears to be a case in which the pause or ‘rest’ in the
rhythm, which usually occurs between two dochmiac feet, is filled up.
The rhythm must be -- συ | —-vu |] -~vul] vuv|-—|— answering to

The following strophae (134—150) have little irregularity :—

140 δοριτίνακτος αἰθὴρ δ᾽ Hermann. But cf. 685=691, 686 -- 692,
etc., and see below on 208 = 215.

147—149. παῖ Διός, ὅθεν von den Bergh, ἐν μάχαις, σύ τε Hermann,

1 See Hadley’s Greek Grammar above πόλιν (suggested by Wecklein). ‘The ex-
cited, and the editor’s notes on Eur. Afed. _ pression ἐπώνυμον Κάδμον πόλιν is surely
1251 foll. above suspicion. Accident would not

2¢g. ται ἀλλ᾽ ὦ Zed πάντως πάτερ produce a phrase of recondite meaning
wavrehés, 125 σύ τ᾽ “Apns φεῦ φεῦ κηδείαν γαῖ perfectly correct.

APPENDIX I. 133

“Oyxa προπύργιος Newman (see further Wecklein’s Appendix). The
sense betrays no error. The last syllable of φίλα in 138 is ‘common’
for lyric verse, and here sung as short, as it might be anywhere before
a vowel; the last syllable of Διόθεν in 147 is long. For the corre-
spondence of σὺ to --, not uncommon in strophic metres, see 752.
The rhythms of -xe τί yev-ljoer-las in 141 and “Oya | πρὸ πόλε-:[ως
in 149 are equal; and the equivalents —~vv=e—vu and -vevvuvar§4e
both frequent. The exclamations in 139, if rightly placed, must be
regarded as interrupting the strophe.

151—164 have been already considered.

With the exception of the Parodos the choric parts of the play do
not offer any general difficulty, being arranged in normal sfrophae.
All of them exhibit variations of rhythm, and that these are genuine,
not errors of copying, is proved by the fact that they do not coincide
with faults in the language or meaning, and also by the fact that similar
variations occur repeatedly. The variations only are noticed here.

186 -σασα τὸν | ἁρματ-ἰόκτυπ-[ον -- 196 -xaia βρέτ-Ϊη πίσυν-ος θεΊοῖς.
See above on 153.

206 μηδ᾽ ἐπίδοιμι τάνδ᾽ = 213 -σι τὰν ἀμήχανον. See above on 118.

208 ἁπτόμενον πυρὶ δαΐῳ -- 215 κρημναμενᾶν νεφελῶν ὀρθοῖ. A ‘long’
syllable in ¢hesés (syllable which does not take the beat of the verse)
treated as a short. See above on 140. This variation is common in
Aeschylus and is found even in strophic writing more exactly regular
than this, eg. Soph. Oed. Col. 1568 ὦ χθόνιαι θεαὶ σῶμά τ᾽ avixdrov = tb,
1557 εἰ θέμις ἐστί μοι τὰν ἀφανῆ θεόν.

219 διὰ θεῶν πόλιν τε 225 ποταίνιον κλύουσ-. Cf. 206. The second
dochmius of 225 is like the first, with the difference that the long
syllable of the first iambus is ‘resolved’ z.e. represented by two short
syllables. The rhythm of 225 is ποταΐ- νιον | xAvovs-||a waray-lov ἂμ’
peya, Both parts of it are variations of the dochmiac foot. In 219
I have admitted with hesitation the corrections νεμόμεθ᾽ and ἀδαμᾶτον :
but it is quite possible that the Ms. νεμόμεσθ᾽ ἀδάμαντον is right. The
examples in tragedy tend, as far as they go, to show that ἀδάματος
was the form used by the Attic poets (see Dindorf Lexicon Aeschyleum
5. vv.); but they are not numerous enough for a certain induction. In
form there is nothing against ἀδάμαντος, and the rhythm. vepopec? |
dSdpayr-lov is a quite conceivable variation of the dochmius.

220=226. Here Porson’s correction axporroAw restores syllabic
conformity, and, as the forms πόλις and πτόλις are certainly confused, it
is critically little less probable than the Ms. reading. But if the first
syllable of ἀκρόπολιν be scanned as long, we have in the ms. only two

134 APPENDIX I.

more examples of the variation -τ συ Ξὸ -τὦ already noticed. Between
ἀκρόπολιν and ἀκρόπτολιν there is really nothing to choose’.

275 γείτονες δὲ καρδίας -- 202 τἄσδ᾽ ἄρειον ἐχθροῖς. From a com-
parison of Supp. 74 ἀπειρόδακρύν τε καρδίαν and 27. 807 καρδίας γάμου
κυρῆσαι (Hermann) it is conjectured that καρδία might be pronounced as
aspondee. Whether it is to be so pronounced here depends on the
rhythm of 292, which may be either + [ 4uU |] Ὁ -- οὐ σὺ [-ἐὺ | -| -.

280—281 = 297—-298. The rhythm of these lines is continuous,
and except for convenience they might be printed as one verse. The
division in the MS. is, as often, arbitrary; 280—81 are divided at
mav-'tponos. The rhythm is -wy dve-|ev-|varopas | a | ravrpop-los qeA-letas,
answering to -δᾶν ὁ | yat-|do-|yos | Τηθύ-ἰος τε | waides. For the variation
—vv=—v see 153. For the scansion of the second syllable of λεχέων
(treated as common at the ‘end of the verse’ or rhythmical break) cf.
ῥύτορες in 305 and see 162, 225 etc. It is possible that we should read
there ῥύτορες ἔστ᾽ (ῥύτορές ἐστε τ᾽ Ritschl), and here λεχαίων or ἐλλεχείων.
But neither correction is necessary.

282—287 = 299—304. Verses of this kind—g/yconic—may com-
mence indifferently with -—, ὦ τὸ or —u: examples of all permutations
will be found here. This familiar fact is not however, as it is some-
times represented to be, a peculiarity of ‘glyconic’ verse, but simply an
application to that verse of general principles. The ‘glyconic’ type is

“υῳ

for examples, χερμάδ᾽ ὀκριόεσσαν, τοὶ μὲν γὰρ ποτὶ πύργους, κατὰ ῥίψοπλον
arav. ‘The variations in the third ‘foot’ and the two first variations in
the first ‘foot’ exemplify the general rule that the ‘thesis’ is ‘common’
(see on 215). ‘The third variation of the first ‘foot’ implies (1) the
principle of syncope (see on 155), and (2) that of the anacrusts extra
metrum (see On 723).

314=326. For syllabic correspondence it is necessary to take νέας
as ἃ monosyllable ; cf. θεός. But if this pronunciation was admitted,

1 In 121 (where it should have been
mentioned that M reads ῥυσίπτολι:) I
have admitted ῥυσίπολις (vece.), and in 325
πτόλις (vec.) for πόλις. Strictly neither
of these changes is necessary. In 121
the rhythm — | 4~ | 4~ | 4 is admissible
on the principles explained on 118 and
218; in 325 the rhythm —~~ | -~~ | -~ |

4|4, taking the last two syllables of
δαμάσθῃ as ‘syncopated’ feet, would an-
swer correctly to -~~ | 4| -~ | -~] --
in 313. But neither of these seems to me
probable. In such a case as this the Ms.
evidence fails, and choice must be to
some extent arbitrary.

mw

eT a

APPENDIX I. 135

we should expect the evidence for it, as in the case of θεός, to be abun-
dant and conclusive. In default of such evidence, it is better to take
this as a case of an anacrusis extra metrum: see on 723.

316=328, As the a of φᾶρος is elsewhere long in Aeschylus,
φαρέων is probably a spondee; see on 215. The pronunciation φᾶἄρξων
is also possible ; see on 280.

317. Bola δ᾽ | ἐκκενουμένα πόλις = 329 καπν-ῷ δὲ | χραίνεται πόλισμ᾽
ἅπαν. See 155.

332—3=344—5. The metre here offers no difficulty. The
anapaest χαμάδις answers to the lambus ποτὶ as it might in the first foot
of an iambic senarius. For the correspondences +u|+-|+-
=+—|+.|+-—seeon 215.. The ms. divides the lines thus, πτόλιν δ᾽ |
Opxdva and πεσὼν | adyuve.

334. πρὸς | ἀν-δρὸς δ᾽ av-lnp δορὶ | «Aiver-lat= 346 mixp-lov δ᾽ | dpup-la
θαλα-μηπόλ-]Ιων. In 334 one foot only is syncopated (see 155), in 346
two feet. Both -vuv and vv vw occur frequently as equivalents for — το:
here they answer to each other.

337 =349. τυ see 153.

338=350. vuu=—v: see 334, and cf. 752.

239-351. πυξ-τυυ. See153. -v=+t—. See 215, 333, 345.

343=355- v|-=—|4. See 215.
404. τὸν ἁμὸν viv dv-= 439 ὅλοιθ᾽ ὃς πόλει. See on 140, 215. By

an oversight the text has the correction ἀμόν νυν. The MS. accentuation
should be retained, as in the note, νῦν being emphatic. Eteocles having
distinguished between justice and fortune, the Chorus ask that ¢his time
fortune may follow justice.

405. δικαίως πόλεως = 440 βέχος ἐπισχέθοι, variations of the doch-
mius. See 156, 551 etc.

407=442. Ifthe ms. reading ὑπερκόμπῳ be retained, see on 215.

468 = 508. Here there is some slight reason, independent of
metre, to doubt the reading. See note on 468. It is also difficult to
see how the rhythms can have been divided so as to be equal.
Syllabic conformity cannot be restored without considerable change.
(See Wecklein’s Appendix.) Rhythmical conformity might be restored
of course much more easily, 6.9. by omitting δὴ in 468 and inserting δὴ
after πέποιθα (with Robortello) in 508. The rhythms will then be
éx-levyo-lpat | τάδε μὲν | εὐτυχ- εν t-o and πέποιθα | δὴ | τὸν Διὸς |
ἀντίτυπον ἔχοντ᾽ (or, with the Ms., é|xovra). But there is not evidence
for any certain conclusion. 468—g9 are divided in the ms. thus,
εὐτυχεῖν | ἰὼ.

470. With the ms. reading βα-[ξζουσ᾽ ἐ- πὶ πτόϊλει = 510 εἴ- κασμα

136 APPENDIX I.

Bpor-lotcé | τὲ: -τπ τυ: see 153. This is correct on principle and
may be right; but the variation does not here. seem agreeable, and
I have admitted Bafovow, though logically not proveable. For the
‘common’ syllable re see on 279.

470—471=510—511. As 510—511 are divided (rightly) in the
MS., 511 has an ‘anacrusis’, or syllable preceding the first beat of the
rhythm, which the answering verse 471 has not: see 730. It is
possible, though not natural, to join xai to 510, and to restore syllabic
conformity by reading βροτοῖς (Brunck).

551=614. See on 106.

553. v|—-=—|+. See 215, 355.

685 = 692, and 686=693. See 140, 215.

712. Ido not think it clear that βλαψίφρονος Οἰδιπόδα is wrong.
The appearance of such irregularities in Epic verse, from the loss of
the F, might well produce an occasional imitation in an archaic narra-
tive such as this.

713 = 720. -υυ [ τ πῷὺ} ππεαπυυπυυπ } [-πτὖὺ:
see 153, 351 etc. This is a good instance of the inference which may
be properly drawn as to the limits of strophic correspondence from the
laws of metre as they affect single verses. The four feet of 720 are
equal, the dactyls being ‘trochaic’ or as they are called ‘cyclic’
dactyls. It 15 therefore quite natural that in the corresponding verse one
of the dactyls should be represented by an actual trochee.

72I—722=728—729. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἂν | αὐτ-ἰοκτον-ὥσιν | avroda-|exr-loe
θάν.ωσι = rad-laryev-\j | γὰρ λέγ-]Ιω παρ-[αβασίαν | ὠκύ-Ιποινον. See
346. The correction παραιβασίαν would give syllabic conformity. This
division, either with or without the correction, is possible. If we read
with Porson παρβασίαν (which I think probably right), the last syllable
of λέγω is a ‘syncopated’ foot.

723 καὶ χθονία κόνις win=730 αἰῶνα δ᾽ és τρίτον μένε. The use
of χθόνιος here is peculiar, but it must be the genuine word. The
emendations which have been suggested (veprépa Weil, yata Hermann
etc.), are all open to the objection that no copyist who found them would
have been likely to substitute χθονία, either as an interpretation or other-
wise. My own belief is that both lines are rightly given by the Ms., and
that there is an irregularity of rhythm (such as in accentual metres
is scarcely considered an irregularity), the first syllable (anacrusis) of
730 having nothing to answer it: cf. 300, 302, 314, 511, 744, 930, and
see On 952—953. For - υὐπ-τ see 153 etc.

726=733. See 215. .

427 = 734. πα-]λαι οἷς | cuppey-lets: see 155, 346. σῴζειν : see 215.

APPENDIX 1. 137

739 σπείρας ἀρουρᾶν = 747 μεταξὺ δ᾽ ἄλκα. See 215.

752. τὰ δ᾽ ὁλοὰ = 758 πόλεως (trisyllable)) ww=—. This variation
is common in all metres. -So again in 764=771, and perhaps in
766 = 773 (see on 275): but probably we should accept xpadég.

763. én-\et δ᾽ apr-lippwv = 770 réxv-lots δ᾽ ap-lacds. See 215.

818, Οἰδίπ-Ἰου τ᾽ dp-|d = 826 exrai-la φάτ- ες, and 821 αἱματοσταγ ets
= 829 οὐκ ap-|BAvvelrat.. See 215.

833—859. Recitative.

860—940. ‘These strophae are on the whole very regular in metre.

862 πατρ]ῴ-Ἰους δόμους = 868 ἰδόντες [7:|δη. In 862 the first foot
(after the anacrusis) is ‘syncopated’ ; in 868 the second. See 155.

863—869. -οἦυπ-. See 153.

The correspondence of 864, 865 with 870, 871 is by feet only, a
dactyl answering to an anapaest in the first pair, a spondee to a
dactyl in the second. This correspondence ‘by feet’ is in fact the rule
for this play in all the lyric metres.

874 = 885. See 215.

- 882=894. In the uncertainty of the readings here it is impossible
to say whether the metre corresponded exactly or not. The same
applies to 899.

896=907. See 215.

898= 909. dai. See 215.

902=913. —v=—vy, if δαΐῴρων, not δαϊόφρων, be right. See
152.

917=929. The rhythm of 929 is ἔϊχουσι | μοῖρ-ἰαν λαχε-[όν-Ϊτες
pére-lo. See 153 and 155.

918. διατομ:-αῖς = 930 δι]οσδότ-Ιων. See on 723.

92 [τ | —v | —=934 v | 4] vee | —: see 155, 338.

᾿ g52—953. AN. μαίνεται γόοισι φρήν. 1%. ἐντὸς δὲ καρδία στένει.
This is a significant case. ‘These verses are clearly intended to be equal
in rhythm. They are so in the number of ἄρσεις or ‘beats’: but the
first commences with a ‘beat’; the second does not, but has an
anacrusis before the ‘beat’. The case of 723 =730 is precisely the
same. The changes suggested here to restore syllabic conformity seem
to me improbable (ἢ μαίνεται Lachmann. ἂν δὲ Burney), and they
involve similar changes in the antistrophe (967—968). <A passage like
this dirge in short sentences of broken meaning is peculiarly liable to
injury, and in one or two places is certainly wrong. In others the
reading seems to have been suspected without reason. In 949 Her-
mann changes προσκείσεται to πρόκεισαι in order that the verse may be
divisible into two equal parts answering each other. But as 949 seems

138 APPENDIX TI.

to be sung by the two voices together (Schneider), it does not require
to be divided into responses. 956—957 as given in the Ms. may
perhaps be scanned thus,

AN. πρὸς φίλον γ᾽ έφθι-'σο.

TS. καὶ φίλον | ἔκταν. ες.

and the corresponding lines of the antistrophe thus,

AN. az-|wAec-ler || δῆτα | xai—
IX. τόνδ᾽ é-\vorduc- ev.

For the anacrusis of 971 see above on 952—953. In 954 the exclama-
tion ἰὼ should perhaps be written only once. The rhythm will then be
ἐ]ὼ | mavdaxp-lure | σύ. 960, 96x and 975, 976 are 50 doubtful in
reading that it is scarcely worth while to consider the metre.

Upon the whole review, we see that three types of variation from
strict syllabic correspondence are common in this play,—for I would
again remark that we are not justified in assuming that an equal strict-
ness must be found in all the works even of the same poet :—(1) a ‘syn-
copated’ foot answering to a complete foot ; (2) the trochaic or ‘ cyclic’
dactyl answering to a trochee proper; (3) a long syllable in ‘thesis’
answering to a short syllable. Each of these is proved by examples far
too numerous to be due to mere accident; that some of the variations
can be removed by slight corrections proves nothing, nor indeed, con-
sidering their number, should we be justified in removing them, if all
were easily corrigible. Whether a stricter correspondence, such as we
sometimes find, is preferable, no one but a native and contemporary
critic could venture to say. Upon the general principles of rhythm
there would seem to be advantages both in the greater and in the less
regularity : and so the Greek artists appear to have thought.

et

APPENDIX II.

On ἔτυμος, ἐτήτυμος etc. in Aeschylus (vv. 81—82).

Ihave reserved for separate discussion the use of ἔτυμος in 7. 82—

αἰθερία κόνις pe πείθει φανεῖσ᾽
# . »
ἄναυδος σαφὴς ἔτυμος ἀγγελος.

Not that there is any apparent difficulty in the words, which would
naturally be rendered by @ messenger without voice yet clear and true,
or to that effect. But if this rendering of ἔτυμος is partly right, it never-
theless omits the chief part of the meaning, and that part which to
Aeschylus justified the otherwise pointless verbosity of the description.
From a comparison of the Aeschylean examples of érvpos etc., it
may be shown that these words had a strong association with a certain
class of ideas, of which the English ¢ruve and ¢ruly give no representa-
tion. The word ἔτυμος and its congeners are found in Aeschylus as
follows’ :—
(1) P. Κῇ 309 (293 Dindorf) γνώσῃ δὲ τάδ᾽ ὡς ἔτυμ᾽ οὐδὲ μάτην
χαριτογλωσσεῖν ἔνι μοι.
(2) 20. 621 (595) πόθεν ἐμοῦ σὺ πατρὸς ὄνομ᾽ aves ;
εἶπέ μοι τᾷ μογερᾷ, τίς ὧν
τίς ἄρα μ᾽, ὦ τάλας,
τὰν ταλαίπωρον ὧδ᾽ ἔτυμα προσθροῖϊς ;
(3) Zheb. 81 (as above cited).
(4) um. 499 (496) πολλὰ δ᾽ ἔτυμα παιδότρωτα
πάθεα προσμένει τοκεῦ-
σιν μεταῦθις ἐν χρόνῳ.
(5) Zheb. 9092 ἐτύμως δακρυχέων ἐκ φρενός.
(6) um. 536 (534) ξύμμετρον δ᾽ ἔπος λέγω"
δυσσεβίας μὲν ὕβρις τέκος ὡς ἐτύμως.
1 I have adapted here with modifica- to which I would refer the reader for

tions parts of a paper On a Chorus of the further remarks connected with the sub-
Choephori (Fournal of Philology, Vol.1X.) ject.

140
(7) Supp. 83 (80)

(8) ers. 739 (737)

(9) Ag. 177 (166)

(10) 420. 483 (477)

(11) 22. 686 (681)

(12) Cho. 946 (948)

(13) Eum. 491 (488)

(14) Supp. 744 (736)

APPENDIX ΜΚ.

ὕβριν δ᾽ ἐτύμως, orvyovres i
ae 452 » ’
πέλοιτ᾽ av ἔνδικοι γάμοις.
ΔΑ. καὶ πρὸς ἥπειρον σεσῶσθαι τήνδε,
τοῦτ᾽ ἐτήτυμον;
AT. ναί: λόγος κρατεῖ σαφηνὴς τοῦτο,
κοὐκ ἕνι στάσις.
Ζεὺς, ὅστις πότ᾽ ἐστίν, εἰ τόδ᾽ αὐὖ-
~ a
τῷ φίλον κεκλημένῳ,
τοῦτό νιν προσεννέπω.
οὐκ ἔχω προσεικάσαι
πάντ᾽ ἐπισταθμώμενος
Α id . A ld
πλὴν Διὸς, εἰ τὸ μάταν
ἀπὸ φροντίδος ἄχθος
A “΄᾿ 9 7
χρὴ βαλεῖν ἐτητύμως.
εἰ δ᾽ ἐτήτυμος (η βαξις)
τίς οἷδεν, 4 τοι θεῖόν ἔστι μὴ ψύθος -
[4 3 J 4 φ
τίς wor ὠνόμαζεν ὧδ᾽
ἐς τὸ πᾶν ἐτητύμως---
μή τιν᾽ ὅντιν᾽ οὐχ ὁρῶμεν,
προνοίαισι τοῦ πεπρωμένον

γλῶσσαν ἐν τύχᾳ νέμων--

τὰν δορίγαμβρον ἀμφινει-

Ky θ᾽ Ἑλέναν ; ἐπεὶ πρεπόντως

Ἑλέναυς, ἕλανδρος, ἐλέπτολις... ἔπλευσεν.

ἔμολε δ᾽ ᾧ μέλει κρυπταδίον μάχας δο-
λιόφρων ποινα.

ἔθιγε δ᾽ ἐν μάχᾳ χερὸς ἐτήτυμος

Διὸς κόρα. Δίκαν δέ νιν

προσαγορεύομεν {

᾿ βροτοὶ τυχόντες καλώς.

κρίνασα © ἀστῶν τῶν ἐμῶν τὰ βέλτατα
ἥξω διαιρεῖν τοῦτο πρᾶγμ᾽ ἐτητύμως.
περίφοβόν μ᾽ ἔχει τάρβος ἐτητύμως,
πολυδρόμου φυγᾶς ὄφελος εἴ τί μοι.

The first review of these examples will show that the use of these

words is by no means a simple matter. Out of fourteen cases no less
than nine offer difficulties, which cannot be resolved by the renderings
true, truly in their proper senses, zz. ‘in accordance with the facts’,
as a quality of words or propositions. And it is to be remembered

1 ἑτοίμως Μ (ἐτύμως is proved by the metre). 2 ἐτητύμως M.

a
—— ey —
7 en π΄ ee -ὄ -ἰὦ

APPENDIX 71 141

that this is the primary and properly speaking the only sense of ἔτυμος :
the English ¢rue, truly cover a large ambiguity of meaning, and must
be used with caution. Passing for the present No. 3 (now under
discussion)—in No. 4 ἔτυμα, ¢rue, has no meaning: in No. 5 φῶ
weeping will not pass, unless we tacitly assume that ἐτύμως, like fruly,
can mean honestly or sincerely: 1 No. 6 a useless ¢ruly does not
satisfy the emphatic ws ἐτύμως, which, by its position, should contain
the point of the sentence: in No. 7 we must again assume the meaning
sincerely: in No. 9 ἐτητύμως must mean completely or fully, another
hypothetical sense, and we have the same difficulty about the emphasis
as in No. 6: in No. 12 ἐτήτυμος Διὸς κόρα is commonly regarded as
unintelligible ; ἐτητύμως, the conjecture of Scaliger, leaves the passage
little, if at all, less obscure’: in No. 13 we have the same problem
as before ; ‘to divide the cause truly’ can appear satisfactory only if
we mentally give to ¢ru/y the sense of honestly, which is not the sense
of ἐτητύμως : and lastly, in No. 14 ἐτητύμως is again emphatic by
position, and ¢ru/y again pointless.

To appreciate fully the cumulative force of these difficulties, as
proof that the use of the words in question is peculiar and must have
some special explanation, it would be well to try a similar experiment
upon fourteen examples faken at random of ἀληθής and ἀληθῶς. It
will certainly satisfy the reader that there is a case for further in-
vestigation.

If now we again examine the above passages, to see whether any
of them have resemblances, such as may help towards a more exact
definition, we see that there is a striking resemblance in four of
them, Nos. 2, 9, 11, and 12. In all these four the subject of the
passage is the correct use of a name. Considering the wide application
of the word /rue (even in the strictly limited sense), this number of
coincidences is extremely remarkable, as again may easily be ascer-
tained by the suggested experiment upon ἀληθής. Further, we notice
that in one of these four, one in which the meaning of ἐτήτυμος is free
from all ambiguity (No. 11), it describes a peculiar kind of truth, namely
verbal or—the word arises inevitably—etymological truth, a correspon-
dence between a name and that which is called by the name. This

1 Mr A. Sidgwick in his edition of the
Choephoré renders the adjective by ‘the
true, the very’, and adds the explanation
‘Justice herself took his hand’. The
translation of ἔθιγε χερός appears to me
inadmissible: there is nothing in the con-

text to warrant the reference of χερός to
the hand of the avenger Orestes. The
translation of ἐτήτυμος I could accept,
though even so we are forcing the word.
At any rate this passage is certainly to be
added to our ‘ difficulties ’.

142 APPENDIX I1.

special sense of τὸ ἔτυμον has since appropnated the word entirely,
to the exclusion of all other meanings; and this appropriation took
place so early that in the common language of Greek prose this class
of words does not appear. Putting these facts together with those
which we have observed in Aeschylus, we are justified in the inference
that already in his time the process of limitation had commenced and had
to some extent changed the colour of the word. Already τὸ ἔτυμον was
somewhat closely associated with e¢ymology. The history of the earliest
Greek studies in this field, like that of other beginnings, is obscure,
but it is certain that they received an impetus about Aeschylus’ time,
and that they attracted the attention of the poets and of Aeschylus
himself. It is not necessary to pursue the subject further here; but
I may perhaps refer to the paper already mentioned. For Aeschylus
the Seven against Thebes would alone be ample proof’.

Seeing then that we have on the one hand many difficulties in the
Aeschylean use of érupos etc., and on the other hand a known fact
about the history of the word, the question presents itself,—can we
use the one to solve the other? Where we found difficulties can we
find ἔτυμα, in the special sense? Does the point turn on some unex-
pected significance of the words which are used? I think that this
solution can be applied with an ease and completeness much greater
than our small knowledge of Aeschylean Greek would permit us to
expect, and sufficient to put beyond question the general correctness
of the hypothesis. And I would particularly ask the reader to observe
how great is the improbability that, if an etymological point was zot
intended, we should be able to find one, even in a single instance,
much less in six or nine.

In No. 6 of our list the missing point can be supplied at once. It is
an apt word, says Aeschylus, that “ insolence (ὕβρις) is the child (τέκος) of
impiety ὡς ἐτύμως", Why ws ἐτύμως Ρ Because insolence under another
name is synonymous with τέκος, the word κόρος having both meanings.
The antiquity of this ethical e¢ymon is proved by the fact, that expressions
derived from it are found scattered over the older poets, κόρος being

sometimes the ‘son’ begotten of ὕβρις, sometimes the ‘male’ (κόρος.

as opposed to κόρη), who begets her; τίκτει τοι κόρος ὕβριν (Theognis),
ὕβριν κόρου ματέρα (Pindar), κόρον ὕβριος υἱόν (ancient oracle attributed
to Bacis*). This example is further instructive as proving not only that
these etymological illustrations were to the Greek mind suitable for
the gravest subjects (Aeschylus himself sufficiently proves that), but
that some such e¢yma had passed into maxims or proverbs, and could

1 See Index II. Verbal Equivocations. 2 See Lex. s. v. κόρος.

ht

APPENDIX II. 143

be referred to by way of allusion, the hearer supplying the key-word.
The meaning of ws ἐτύμως then is ἐπ the truest sense, t.e. as the name
shows by a remarkable coincidence intended for the instruction of
man.—In No. 7 we have the same efymon in a slightly different form.
The Danaides are imploring the gods to preserve them from an
enforced marriage with their cousins. When they say that the gods
‘detest such insolence as ΖΓ truly is’, the spirit which they so describe
is ὁ τοῦ κόρου κόρος, the ‘masculine violence’ of the would-be bride-
grooms, whose very name of κόρος signifies their character. It is the
same ἀνδρὸς ὕβρις which, according to v. 502 of our play, is detested
by the virgin goddess Athena.—In No. 13 the situation is this; Athena,
having declared the cause of Orestes to be too grave for the judgment
of a man and too impure for her own interference, announces her
intention to summon a jury of Athenian citizens, who decide it by
division of votes. This process she describes in the citation by the
words διαιρεῖν τὸ πρᾶγμα to divide the cause, and to this phrase is added

ἐτητύμως. Obviously the eymon, if there be one, must lie in the word
διαιρεῖν. Can it be by accident that we are again led straight to a

verbal resemblance, which the Greeks are known to have observed
and to have made the basis of a derivation, between δικάζω judge and
διχάζω (-Ξ- διαιρέω) divide? Such an accident is incredible, and we
cannot but conclude that ἐτητύμως is intended to call attention to the
spontaneous evidence of language in favour of judgment by division’.
—Not less clear is the case of No. 12. From internal evidence alone
I should think it certain that this passage contained an efymon. I can
see no other meaning in the words ‘‘We mortals make a happy hit
in calling her Δίκη. Seeing that the “daughter of Zeus” here is Δίκη
herself and no one else, how can it be a “happy hit” to call her by her
only name, unless that name is found to have some unintended sig-
nificance? The signification intended is clear enough :— Upon him
that loves clandestine battle hath come a crafty vengeance: the daughter
of Zeus, most truly named, hath hit him* in a battle of might, she whom

1 In the paper above cited I suggested
that the key-words κόρος, κόρον, διχάζειν

by allusion. And so with other instances
hereafter noticed.

ought to be restored to the text of the
above passages for τέκος, ὕβριν and διαι-
petv respectively, which might have been
originally explanations of them. This is
not impossible or even improbable, but
on the whole I think it more likely that
the texts are right, and that the efyma
were sufficiently familiar to be intelligible

2 The object of ἔθιγε is supplied from
the previous clause. To the use of the
word there is an exact parallel in Eur.
Bacch. 1179. XO. τίς ἁ βαλοῦσα πρώτα;
AT’. ἐμὸν τὸ γέρας. ΧΟ. τίς ἄλλα; AT.
τὰ Κάδμου γένεθλα μετ᾽ ἐμὲ τοῦδ᾽ ἔθιγε
θηρός. For μάχα χερός cf. Eur. fr. 291
and the phrase és χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν fo engage

144 APPENDIX IT.

we mortals happily call Δίκη. It is the spear of justice, cast at the
guilty Aegisthus, which is in the mind of the poet, and he would
connect her name with δικεῖν fo throw.—No. 11 needs no explanation.—
In No. 4 the @ymon should lie in παιδότρωτα, and here it is at once
discoverable, for παιδότρωτον πάθος means not only ‘wound struck by
a child’, but also ‘wound struck with the point’’ of the weapon, and
apart from the context the second would be the more natural of the
two.—No. 5, a clear and simple case, has been already explained in
the notes.—In No. 9 the case is more doubtful. It is possible to render
εἰ τὸ μάταν ἀπὸ φροντίδος ἄχθος χρὴ βαλεῖν ἐτητύμως by ‘if in good
truth I must cast from me the vain load of care’ (Mr A. Sidgwick’s
translation), It is possible, but not satisfactory. The order shows that
ἐτητύμως is closely connected with βαλεῖν. But ‘to cast truly’ is an im-
possible phrase, unless ¢ru/y be taken to mean ¢horoughly, which ἐτητύμως
does not. Moreover, in the translation the words ‘in good truth’ are at
best superfluous; in the Greek ἐτητύμως by its position is all-important.
If on the contrary we seek an e¢ymon, there is no difficulty in finding
it. The frame of the passage shows that it must be an e¢¢ymon upon the
name Διός and must be suggested by the word βαλεῖν. The key-word
is again to be found in dcxety*: the religious e¢ymon to which Aeschylus
alludes connected the syllable Δι- in the sacred name with ὁ δικών, and
interpreted it, by the gymnastic use of δικεῖν, as a symbol of strength.
Such a derivation will seem quite natural to those who are acquainted
with ancient etymologies. So stands the evidence, not decisive on either
side. If the passage stood alone, I should incline against an etymo-
logical reference. The general argument from the use of ἐτήτυμος else-
where in Aeschylus turns the balance the other way.—In No. 14 I am
unable to offer any solution with confidence. If I may trust my ear,
the prominent position of ἐτητύμως demands a meaning at least more
pertinent than ¢ru/y, and this of itself satisfies me that the expla-
nation to be sought is etymological. The speakers appear to compare
themselves to animals chased and not able to escape any further’.

tn fight: there is a special point in the
antithesis between xpumradios μάχη (cf.
Hom. //. 6. 161) and μάχη χερός, but it
would take us too far to examine it. As
in the previous cases the etymology is
presumed by the poet as already known.
“1 From mals, poimt, connected with
walw. See Hesychius παιδός" ἀκμῆς. This
gloss has been supposed, but without
reason, to be corrupt.

2 δικεῖν' Baxetv—Hesychius. I think it
probable that δικεῖν was actually the text,
seeing that Hesychius abounds in glosses
based on the text of Aeschylus. But this
assumption is neither necessary nor de-
monstrable. For further illustrations of
this passage see the paper already cited.

3 See their language at 7. 352 (349)
where a similar metaphor is more fully
worked out.

at? ___ am

fa ae

“a

APPENDIX II. 145

I formerly suggested that the etymon lay in περίφοβον, which, com-
monly meaning very terrible, is here to be pressed to the full etymo-
logical sense of surrounding with terror; and this, I think, is true as far
as it goes. But it cannot be the complete account of the matter, for by
the order of the words the e¢ymon must include τάρβος. Is it not
probable that this word, like the Latin equivalent /ormido, had, beside
its common meaning, a technical sense in the language of hunters, vz.
the scare, a line of feathers or the like, with which animals were
driven’? This at any rate would at once permit a complete explana-
tion: ἐτητύμως would have the same force as elsewhere ‘a περίφοβον
τάρβος truly so called’, and would mark the allusive metaphor which
τάρβος is intended to suggest.

In four of our examples, Nos. 1, 2, 8, ro, there 1s no trace of efyma;
and in none of these accordirigly is there the slightest ambiguity in the
use of ἔτυμος or ἐτήτυμος, which applies, in the strictest sense of the
word ἦγε, to a proposition, a thing said. All the others have now
been examined, with the exception of No. 3, the original subject of
these remarks, to which we will now turn.

αἰθερία κόνις με πείθει φανεῖσ᾽
‘ Ld
ἄναυδος σαφὴς ἔτυμος ἄγγελος.

It will be observed that here ἔτυμος is not used exactly in the proper
sense: τὸ ἔτυμον is properly the quality not of the messenger but of the
message. In itself this is not remarkable; the Lexicon will show other
such uses both of ἔτυμος and of similar words, such as σαφής or ἀληθής.
But in the light of the other evidence, the slightest irregularity must
excite our attention. The question may be put thus. Does the com-
bination xévis-ayyeAos admit of an etymological interpretation? If it
does, the presence of ἔτυμος is sufficient to assure us that this interpre-
tation was in the mind of the poet. But it is certain that it does admit
this interpretation ; for to the Greek ear the stem xov- suggested not
merely ‘dust’ but also ‘an errand-runner’ or ‘servant’, as is proved
by the extant words κονητής @ servant and the compound éyxoveiv, both
implying the previous existence of κονεῖν and κόνος, It is even probable,
from the analogy of λάτρις, that this stem also formed a masculine dimi-
nutive κόνις, having the same meaning*. This of course cannot be
proved, neither is it necessary to our present purpose. We know

1. cum maximos ferarum greges linea 2 From this and not from κόνις, dust,
pennis distincta contineat et in insidias was probably derived xoviwodes, a local
agat, ab ipso effectu dicta formido. (Sen. name for serfs at Epidaurus. See the
de Ira, 11. 12.) Lex. $. νυ.

V. 4. IO

146 APPENDIX II.

enough to see that the association between κόνις and ἄγγελος was natural
to a mind studious of such things, and we know also that this associa-
tion was permanent, for in the Supplices (v. 186) the words of our
passage are repeated—ope κόνιν, ἄναυδον ἄγγελον στρατοῦ. All this
being so, it may remain possible that Aeschylus described κόνις as
ἔτυμος ἄγγελος, and yet did of mean to suggest that the very name
of κόνις imported the function. But it requires ‘a robust faith’ to
believe it.

In considering the whole subject, and generally in the study of Aes-
chylus, we must of course dismiss wholly from our minds the modern
, feeling about equivocation in words. If anything is certain in history,
it is certain that the feeling, which regards such things as fit only for
the lightest kind of jest, would have seemed to Aeschylus not merely
exaggerated but absurd, irreverent, and wholly unintelligible. Dante
was far enough from our doctrine in this matter, and Shakespeare
still farther, but Aeschylus is ten times as far again from Shakespeare.
To the unscientific mind the meaning of a word or a name, like that of
Helen, was the writing of God. It is not in the mouth of a jester, but
in that of the holy prophet Amphiaraus, that he puts the equivocation
upon the name Polynices. It is in a passage of the most highly-wrought
emotion, such as the dirge in the present play, that he is boldest and
most abundant in such touches as

2 > 9 4 8 ’
πέπαυται δ' ἔχθος, ἐν δὲ γαίᾳ
c
Coa, φονορρύτῳ
? . of > weg
μέμικται" κάρτα δ᾽ εἴσ᾽ ὅμαιμοι.

It is not our province to justify him, as assuredly we should think
many times before we venture to condemn. Good or bad, such was
his feeling and his practice—a significant mark of the interval between
our minds and his, and a warning not hastily to assure ourselves that
we have succeeded in passing it.

τ παν ἔοι ὩὦοΠὦἕἷ *
a
—— αν τς es
σι ---.-.--... - 1

TRANSLATION.

Scene. THE CADMEA. : Zime. DAY-BREAK.

Etecodes. Townsmen of Cadmus, speech must be fitted to the time.
Whoso watcheth the course and setteth the tiller at the helm of a state,
let him do it with never-slumbering eye. For if we should prosper,
fortune hath the praise; but if—which heaven forbid !—mischance should
befall, then would ‘Eteocles’ be the one burden multiplied by the
townsfolk up and down with ominous roar and outcry, from which may
Zeus the Protector, for his name’s sake, protect the Cadmean town!
And it is your part now, all of you,—both him that yet lacks of
perfect manhood, and him who for age beareth no more the body’s -
increase, and every man of prime according to his vigour—to succour
the town and the altars of her inhabiting gods, and save from destruction
the religion of her children and of earth their kindly foster-mother. For
she it was who, welcoming all the cumber of your childhood’s care,
nourished on benign soil your growing youth, to be her householders
and shieldbearers, in whom she trusted, that ye might be created against
the present need. |

And herein up to this present fortune inclines to us: for throughout
this long beleaguering our war in sallies hath been for the more part
prosperous. But now, as says the prophet who feedeth the fowls, he
who by ear and mind distinguishes the omens which without fire the
birds reveal to his never-erring skill,—he, master of such divination,
tells that a crowning assault and enterprise of the Achaeans upon the
town 15 planning in the night’s debate. But away to the parapets, to
the gates of the wall, hie all of you, harness yourselves in haste; man
the breast-works, post yourselves on the platforms, and await the moment
of sally with a good courage. Be not much afraid of the foreign throng.
Fortune will stand by us still. Scouts I have sent myself to espy their
host, such as I trust will well do their errand, and when I have their
report, I shall not be craftily surprised.

10---2

i

148 TRANSLATION vv. 39—80.

(Enter a Spy.)

Spy. Noble Eteocles, king of the Cadmeans, I bring from the host
a sure report of their doings, whereof I myself have been eye-witness.
Seven warriors, each the gallant captain of a band, putting their hands
to the gore of a bull as they shed into a shield the crimson stain, sware
an oath by Ares Enyos and by Terror who thirsts for blood, either to
do destruction on: the Cadmeans’ fortress and, come who may, to de- _
populate their town, or dying themselves to mingle this earth with gore’.
And to remember them unto their parents at home, they hung keep-
sakes with their own hands on Adrastus’ chariot, dropping a tear, though
there was no lamenting of the lips; for their iron spirit, burning with
valour, breathed as the breath of lions when battle is in their eyes.

And they will know further of the matter without flinching, for I left
them casting lots, how they should themselves lead each his band against
an appointed gate. Therefore let thy bravest soldiers, chosen from all
the folk, be placed with all speed to sally forth from the gates. For
near at hand already the whole array of Argives comes in a cloud of
dust, and the plain is flecked with white foam blown from their steeds.

' Thou, like a good helmsman of a ship, bulwark thy fortress ere the

hurricane of war bursts down; for their host, a sea upon the land, is
beginning to roar. And thereto seize the speediest occasion. I after
this shall have daylight proof of what. I see*; so shalt thou know by
certain report the news from without, and shalt take no harm.
[Zxet Spy.

Lteocles. Ah, Zeus and Earth, ah, gods of this place, and thou,
Curse of my father, his mighty Avengeress, let not my town at least be
rooted out, stem and stock, by conquering foes altogether destroyed, —
this folk, this spring of Hellenic speech, with the homes and hearths
therein. Yield not the free land and town of Cadmus to be held of
slavish yokes*(?). Be ye her help. I plead methinks in part for you ;
a town that prospers rewards her deities.

[αι Eteocles, citizens, ete.

(Enter the CHORUS OF MAIDENS, flying to the Acropolis. The entrance-
song ts recited or sung partly by single voices, partly by semi-chorus or
Sull chorus. The exact distribution is not ascertained.)
Chorus. Woe, woe! a great and fearful thing !
The host hath passed their rampart’s limit, and the fore-running
1 or, with τῇδε, ‘to mingle the earth, as 2 literally, ‘shall have my eye sure, as

thus, with gore’. seeing by day’. See head-note.
3 See the notes.

TRANSLATION vv. 80—135. 149

multitude of horsemen flows toward us, a mighty stream. I know by
the dust, seen high in the air, telling without voice a message plain and
true.

And lo! my native plain, smitten by their hoofs, urges upon mine
ear a sound, a hovering sound, that roars like a resistless water smiting
a mountain side. |

Ah, gods and goddesses, avert the rushing woe!

Chasing the defenders’ toward the citadel, the crowd of white shields
comes lightly over the wall.

Who then will rescue, who then help, what god, what goddess ?

’ And J—of all these, our fathers’ deities, before which shall I fall ?
Oh, throned and blessed ones! quick ! let us cling to them! why waste
the time in fruitless wail ?—

Hear ye, or hear ye not, the clatter of shields ?—

Robes and wreaths, the means of supplication, when shall we embrace
them, if not now >—

That clash! I see it! The spear is in that sound !—

What wilt thou do to thy land, oh Ares, wilt thou leave her, thou,
her god of old? thou of the golden helm, look, look upon the town,
which once thou didst take for thy well-beloved.

Gods of this high place, come, oh come all! Look upon a maiden
band praying never to be slaves. For round about the citadel is seething
a human wave of sloping crests, driven on by the breath of War.

But oh Zeus, oh Father Almighty, from sack of foemen deliver us
yet; though Argives surround the fortress of Cadmus, and the weapons
of their warfare scare us, though they bind the mouths of their horses
with bridles whose sound is death,—though seven proud chieftains, in
arms conspicuous above the martial host, were in act to take before
each gate of the Seven their allotted posts.

Thou too, Zeus-born, warlike, victorious, prove thyself, oh Pallas,
the saviour of the town. And thou, Poseidon, lord of the horse, lord of
the sea by the fish-spear, thine engine, with deadly purpose let, oh let
thy weapon fly !

Thou Ares also, oh! for the very name’s sake guard Cadmus’ town,
and show thyself in love a father to her.

And Cypris, who art our first mother, succour us; of thy blood are
we born; crying with loud prayers unto thee we draw nigh.

Thou too, Lord of the Wolf, prove thy wolf-name with wail and
howl upon the host of the foe, and thou also, oh maiden born of Leto!—

Hark, hark, the rattle of chariots! I hear it round the town !—

reading Body,

150 TRANSLATION vv. 136—178.

Ah, lady Hera !—

’Tis the naves crying beneath the axles’ load.—

Artemis, beloved !—

And oh, how the mad air quivers to the spears !—

What is done to our town? what is to come? and whither beyond is
Fate leading the event ?

But oh, the slingers’ hail of stones upon the battlements is coming!

Ah, beloved Apollo,—Hark to the din of brazen shields at the gates!
—and oh, Onca, chaste power of war, stablished by Zeus, and blessed
queen of patriot battle, rescue thy seven-gated seat.
_ Ah gods, whose property is to help, gods and goddesses, who by
your office are guardians of these towers, yield not the war-stricken town
to a host of alien speech. Listen, oh listen to the prayer of maiden
hands righteously upraised.

Ah kind divine deliverers, stand over the town, and show the kindness
that ye bear her. Think on her public sacrifices, think on them and
succour, and keep in remembrance her acceptable feasts.

(Enter ETEOCLES, with citizens, et¢.)

Eteocles. Answer me you, creatures intolerable! is this then the
best way to save the beleaguered town and to encourage her soldiers
here,—to fling yourselves before the images of this sacred place with
howling and screaming, such as decent ones abhor?

Never in evil days nor good may I house with ever a one of the
female kind’! While she is strong, she is too insolent to live near, and
when she takes alarm, mischievous to house and to town yet more. So
now, with this flight ye have taken through the townsmen, your noise
hath spread among them a spiritless cowardice. But ’tis the very best
way to aid the enemy without and make a breach upon us with our

own hands from within !

1 yy. 170—171. These lines may be
taken in three slightly different ways:
either (i) joining φίλῃ with eveoro? and
reading τῷ, ‘never may I house with the
female kind’; or (ii) joining φίλῃ with
εὐεστοῖ and reading Ty, ‘never may I house
with anything feminine’ (re γυναικεῖον
γένει) ; or (iii) joining φίλῃ as substantive
(ove) with ξύνοικος and reading ry: τῳ
and γυναικείῳ are then feminine agreeing
with φίλῃ (cf. Cho. 877) and γένει is con-
structed as in (ii). In recitation there
would be no ambiguity, as the inflexion of

And if any refuse obedience to my authority,

the voice would decide. (i) is the simplest,
but the least probable. Both in (i) and
(ii) φίλῃ is otiose. Neither (ii) nor (iii)
seems to have been suggested; Hermann
objecting to (i) reads φύτῳ: for other
suggestions see Wecklein’s Appendix.
For φίλῃ as used in (iii) cf. Soph. Z/. 652
φίλοισι ξυνοῦσαν ols ξύνειμι νῦν: we have
no English word which covers φίλος.
On the whole I prefer (iii): the super-
fluity of definition in φίλη γυναικεῖος γένει
improves the rhetorical point, and re-
sembles the style of v. 179.

TRANSLATION vv. 179—224. 151

man or woman or what may be between, not only shall the death of that
debater be debated, but the people have ‘stones’, which assuredly he
shall not escape’. In things without let not woman advise, for they
are man’s affair*; being within, she is hke enough to hinder.—Didst
thou hear or didst thou not? or art thou deaf?

Cho. Ah, son of Oedipus, dear, I Aeard, and with terror, the drum-
ming of the chariots, and all the rolling bass of their wheels; I heard
the harsh pipe of the guiding-gear in the horse’s mouth, roaring as with
fire ;—

£t, What then? Did ever a sailor find the means of safety who
fled from helm to prow, when the ship laboured in the tossing of the sea?

Cho. —but I ran quick to the ancient images divine, and put my
trust in the gods. When rose the roar of the deadly hail hailing upon
the gates, then, oh then I was carried up by fear to supplicate the
Blessed Ones, that their strength might shield the town.

Et. Pray that the wall may keep out the foeman’s spear; (will it not
be still the gods that do it*?): but as for them, the gods of a taken town
desert her citadel, ’tis said.

Cho. Never while I live may this holy company depart ; never may
_I see this high place over-run, and they that fight for it burning in the
fire of the foe!

Lt. Invoke me not the gods for thy mischievous debating. Pros-
perity, saith the legend, hath for her mother the wife of Protection,
Obedience.

Cho. ’Tis so: but yet the divine might is above all, and in many a
woe doth lift up her that is helpless, even out of sore distress, when
clouds hang over her eyes.

Et. Nay this is men’s part in the struggle with the foe, to serve the
gods with victim and divination: thine is to be silent and bide within
the house.

Cho. We hold the citadel, safe by the grace of heaven, and still the
wall keeps back the throng of the foe. What need for jealous dis-
pleasure at this?

Et, Worship, I grudge thee not, any gods and all. But if only
thou disheartenest not thy fellow men, thou mayest be easy and not
much afraid.

1 An adequate English version of vv. 3 The order is μὴ γυνὴ βουλευέτω τἄξω-

180—181r is impossible, as the antitheses θεν, μέλει γὰρ ἀνδρί.
of ψῆφος-λᾶας, βονλή-δῆμος, axovew-Bov- δ or, without the interrogation, ‘the

λεύεσθαι belong neither to our language _—gods at any rate will not do it’.
nor our history: see the notes.

152 TRANSLATION vv. 225—266.

Cho. It was the strangeness of the confused din which scared and
frighted me to the reverend sanctuary of this hill.

£t. And now, if ye should hear of death or of wounds, make no
fastidious(?) outcry ; for this is Ares’ food, even the blood of men.

Cho. There! Yes, I hear it—the neighing of steeds.

Et. Now that thou hearest plain, be not too quick to hear.

Cho. A low sound comes from the earth, as it were the roll of
them circling round.

Et. Is it not enough that I take thought for all?

Cho. 1 fear—but the hammering at the gates grows louder!

Et. Nay, hush! Surely thou wilt not tell it in the town!

Cho. Oh ye united powers, yield not up your fortress.

£t. Ah, curses upon thee! Silence thy cries and bear.

Cho. Gods, citizens of this city, save me from slavery !

£t. Thou thyself makest slaves of me and all the people.

Cho. Almighty Zeus, let the blow fall upon those thou lovest not!

Et. Ah Zeus, what a thing thou madest, making woman! ᾿

Cho. Wretched she is, and man no less, when their town is taken. |

Et. What! evil omens now!—though thy hand is upon thy gods!

Cho. When the spirit is gone, fear surpriseth the tongue.

Et. It were so easy, if thou would’st be entreated—

Cho. Thou hast but to say the word—and I will see’.

it. Be still, perverse one; put not thy friends in fear.

Cho. T am still; the general fate I too must share.

Zt, ‘This saying of thine I take rather than those before: and to
this, seeing thou hast hold upon the images of our gods, thou must add
—which were better still—thy prayers’, that the gods will fight with us.
Also thou must hear me pray, and thyself—for it is thy sacred privilege—
raise at the close of the prayer the joyful cry, rendering, after the custom
of Hellas, thy service of the religious note which cheers the friend and
scares the foe. And for my part, unto the deities of this place, be they
of the citadel or the plain or watch they over the market, and to the
streams Dircaean, our river of Ismenus—unto these I vow that, if we
prosper and when the town is safe, ‘heir altars shall men dye with the
blood of sheep, to ¢kem shall the bull be slain, and eve will I set trophies,
when I shall hang before the shrines of the holy temples the spear-
battered spoils of war,—fresh gifts from the enemy to this their vestiary.

Thus must thou make thy vows to the gods, not with much sighing,

1 literally, ‘say it, pray, as quickly as __ their hesitation returns.
possible, and I shall know anon’, or ‘shall 2 or ‘add thy prevailing prayers’.
perhaps know’. They are yielding, but 7

-TRANSLATION wv. 266—333. 153

nor with vain savage screams. For the doom of all will be inevitably
thine. Ἴ will haste back again and will be naming seven, myself for
one, to answer the foe’s great challenge at our gates,—here, at my
return, ere yet our scouts, loud and impatient, bring to our debate
the heat of urgency.

[Lxit Eteocles.

Chorus. 1 heed his words’; but yet—terror suffers not my heart
-to slumber: sad thoughts, too nigh to her, still quicken her dread of
the beleaguering: folk: and as one who fears a snake for her nestlings,
so doth she fear, poor trembling dove, them who would ravish our
embraces. For lo, one part are mounting the wall, by troops and by
multitudes—ah, what will become of me ?—while others, to divide the
defence, shower upon our men the flinty stone. Gods, sons of Zeus, by
all your power, rescue the sons of Cadmus, his soldiers and citizens’.

And what soil will ye take instead, better than this, if ye surrender to
the foe yon land, deep of mould, and the Dircaean water, healthfullest
stream to drink of all poured forth by earth-embracing Poseidon and by
Tethys’ sons? Therefore, oh gods of this place, cast down into the foe
without the wall a strong delusion, that they fling their arms away and
die ; and win thereby high honour of this people: and at our loud and
lamentable entreaty, bide on your thrones, our public saviours.

For tis a piteous thing to send into perdition a town of old time like
this, to take her a prize of-the spear, humbled to dust and ashes,
ravaged without respect by worshippers of Achaean gods :—piteous too,
that her daughtéra_bereaved should be haled along, ah misery, both
young and old, as hcrses by the forelock, while men pluck their raiment
from them! The city, left desert, as the captive train with divers
tones of lamentation passes away, doth cry ‘I dread for thee a horrible
fate’.

And a woeful thing it is for the fresh maids to pass the hated thresh-
old of those that will wait no rites ere they pluck the flower*—What
say I? Oh, he that is slain, I say, hath a better fate than theirs.

For many, ah many miseries befall a taken town :—each hales his
prisoner off, murdering here, and burning there, till all the place grows
foul with smoke, as the Spirit of War, maddened with conquest of a
people, breathes upon fair Reverence. his defiling breath. |

Up the street comes the rumbling din, as the ring, like a wall, closes

1 πόλις collective for πολῖται; .the houses of those etc.’ or, reading ἀρτιτρόπων
rendering ‘town’ is ‘excluded by the ὠμοδρόποις νομίμων προπάροιθεν ‘ for maids,
balance of the sentence. deflowered before seasonable rites, to pass

2 literally, ‘the threshold of the hated the threshold of hated houses’.

154 TRANSLATION vv. 333—378.

on the citadel’. Man falls slain beneath the spear of man; the
nursing mothers, red with blood, scream at the bleating of their babes ;
and the little ones are chased and seized. They that have made booty
mess together, and they that have not bid each other to the feast, none
refusing a partner, even as hungry, aye, or hungrier than himself. What
need now to be calculating shares ?

Foison of every soil is flung on the ground, sorrowful ta encounter,
while the mistresses of the store look bitterly, and many a boon of earth,
mingled without distinction, pours in torrents wastefully away. And
the young slave-girls, miserable prizes of a fortunate spear, feel their
grief anew: for when the foe is master their prospect is to attend an
office of the night, which doth refresh their tearful griefs.

One of the Chorus*. Lo, friends, he that went to spy the host brings
us, I judge, some fresh tidings thereof, and urges for haste the play of
his returning feet.

Another of the Chorus.
will come at the instant to hear the man’s report.
other, hath not foot enough for his haste.

And see, the royal son of Oedipus himself
He too, like the

(Enter on one sule the Spy, on the other side ETEOCLES with the six
champions, attended.)

Sy. Ican tell from good knowledge the state of our adversaries,
and how the gates are allotted unto each.

Tydeus is already before the gate Proefides, roaring with rage,
though their prophet forbids to pass Ismenus, because the sacrifices
prove not favourable. But Tydeus, eager and hungry for fight, in
tones like the serpent’s hiss at noon, would sting Oecleus’ son with the
taunt that, prophet in his cunning, he shrinks from death and from
battle, because ‘he hath no spirit in him’. So cries he and shakes
the three overshadowing crests, which hang like a mane upon his helm,
with brazen bells of terrible clangour fastened thereto.

Wrought upon his shield he beareth this proud blazon, a heaven
a-fire with the lesser stars* and conspicuous at the centre of the
buckler the eldest of stars, night’s eye, the full bright moon. Thus ~

- 1 literally ‘and a wall-like ring’ or
‘enclosure (comes) toward the citadel’.
͵ὁρκάνα πυργῶτις is perhaps the assailants
themselves, who are pressing from all
points towards the centre. That πτόλις
here means the citadel, or central height,
is evident from the distinction made be-
tween πόλις and ἄστυ. But the inter-

pretation is wholly uncertain.

2 This and the following speech are
spoken by the leading voices of the Chorus
on the two sides—dux hemichorii, Weck-
lein. -

δ or, reading um’ ἄστροις, ‘a blazing
heaven and stars thereupon’.

TRANSLATION vv. 378—421. 155

in boastful arms expressing his fancy, he bellows at the river’s bank,
yearning for battle, like a horse breathing furiously upon his bit, when
he waits panting for the sound of the trumpet. Whom wilt thou oppose
to him? Who, when the ‘barrier’ is ‘opened’, may be trusted to
defend the gate of Proetus ὃ

£t. The gawds upon a man will never frighten me. Blazonry
_ doth not wound, and crest and bell have no sting without the spear.

And as for this ‘night’, splendid with the heavenly stars, which
chance, thou sayest, has put upon his shield—the fool may prove
prophetic because he hath no w¢. For should his ‘night’ fall upon his
dying eyes, then will the boastful blazon prove to the bearer a real night
and a true: and so his present insolence is a prophecy against himself.

For my part, I will oppose to Tydeus as champion of the portal
the good son of Astacus here, one of nght noble bitth, who honours
the throne of modesty and abhors proud speech: for ’tis his way to
let his bravery be without unseemly act. The remnant of the Warrior-
Seed, which Ares spared, is the root wherefrom he springs, this true-
born son of our soil, Melanippus. He must do in the hazard as Ares
shall determine ; but the Right was born with him', which sends him
forth, to fend from his mother the assailing spear.

[Exit Melanippus.

Cho. May the gods give now to our champion good fortune as
he hath good night, going forth to fight for his country! Yet, when a
friend hath passed away, I tremble lest I should see him borne home
a bloody corpse.

Spy. The gods give him good fortune: so be it.—Capaneus hath
drawn the lot for the gate Evectrae, a giant this one, exceeding the
stature of the first, and more than man in the arrogance of his vaunt,
threatening peril to nothing less than towers, and asking no sanction
from fate’; for whether heaven will or no, saith he, he will sack the
town, and not Zeus’ daughter herself should stay him, if she descended
upon earth in his path: her lightnings and thunderous bolts he likens
unto heats of noon.

For blazon he hath a man bearing fire, unarmed, but holding with
both hands a torch armed with flame’, and speaking by signs of gold
the words ‘I will burn the town’, Against such an one thou must

1 strictly ‘is verily his sister’, but the may fate prohibit)’. But the other way,
above is the nearest English equivalent taking ἃ μὴ κραίνοι τύχη as quoted from
which I can suggest. Capaneus, gives a much better point.

2 or, if ἃ μὴ κραίνοι τύχη be taken as 8 or, ‘having no other arms but a
a parenthetic ejaculation, ‘peril (which blazing torch in his hands’; see note.

156 TRANSLATION vv. 421—467.

send—ah, who will encounter, who undismayed abide the boast of
his ‘man’ ?

£t. This also breeds an advantage, the second even as the first.
Even to men the tongue, ’tis said, faithfully betrayeth foolish pride: but
Capaneus defieth greater than men with more than speech; and straining
his mouth, poor mortal, with ineffectual grin, yells at Zeus in heaven
a storm of big words. Which doth itself give me fair assurance to
expect for ‘the fire-bearer’ a thunderbolt, no ‘likeness’ but the real’:
and in reserve we have a man, for all his prate, of a fierce courage,
even Polyphontes, warranted to defend us by favour of Artemis his
protectress and other help divine.

Proceed to the next and his allotted gate. |
[Zxit Polyphontes.

Cho. Perish the boaster who thus loudly insults the town; and
may the stroke of thunder stay him, ere ever he leap into my dwelling-
place, and his ravaging spear triumph over these virgin bowers!

Spy. I proceed’. Eteoclus it was to whom it fell, when the third
lot leapt from the brazen helmet upturned, to charge with his band
-upon the gate JVeistae. His horses strain against their headbands,
as he turns them round and round, in their eagerness to dash upon the
gate. They have nose-gear that whistles in outlandish fashion, when
the breath of their proud nostrils fills it. And of no humble, fashion
is the blazon upon his shield,—a man in armour mounting the steps
of a ladder to an enemy’s fort which he would sack; and this man,
like him of the other shield, proclaims by groups of signs that not Ares’
self could expel him from the fortress. Against him also thou must
send one whom we may trust to protect this people from the yoke
of slaves.

Eteocles (pointing to Megareus whose shield bears the figure of Ares).
I can send him on the instant, and a fortunate choice it is. In-
deed he bears his commission, no idle brag, in his own hands—this
Megareus, son of Creon, seed of the Earth-born stock, one whom no
impatient horses with roaring neigh will scare one.step from the gate;
no, either by his death he will pay in full to the land the charge of his
rearing, or else, sweeping off two men and a town all a-row’, will
deck with spoils his Father’s house.. Proclaim me yet another two‘,

and pr’ythee be liberal of thy style. .
᾿ ; [Lxit Megareus,

1 vy. 433 omitted. the double sense, see note.
2 uv. 444 Omitted. 4 reading ἔτ᾽ ἄλλω.
3 This is the principal meaning; for |

TRANSLATION vv. 468—515. 157

' Cho. ‘Truly do I pray good fortune for this side, oh thou champion
of my dwelling-place, and ill on theirs. And for the arrogant words,
which in the madness of their hearts they vent upon us, may Zeus the
Divider look upon them in his wrath !

Spy. The fourth, who 15 taking the next post at the neighbouring
gate of Athena Onca’, is one who brings in other fashion his procla-
mation with him,—Hippomedon, accoutred with huge embossed device.
My hair stood on end, as I will not deny, to see the long circuit which
it ran around his shield. It was sure no mean workman, who invented
this augmentation thereof,—Typhon breathing through a fiery mouth
a smoke shot with red gleams akin to fire, whose branching snakes
are supported upon a frame which encompasses the concave disc: and
for voice there was the cheer of Hippomedon. Possessed with the
spirit of war like a Bacchant he raves for battle with appalling scowl.
This is one whose assault needs careful guard, for he vaunts his terror
already at the gate.

Zt. For one defender shall be Pallas Onca, the city’s neighbour
at the gate, who hating such insolence in man will keep him from us:
as a bird from her brood the wintered snake. And to match him,
man to man, I have chosen good Hyperbius, son of Oenops, who is
ready to put to fortune the question of his fate. He is not to be
contemned for his shape, or his spirit,—no, nor for the carriage of his
arms*: Hermes hath paired them fitly, for the men who are to meet
are foes, and on their shields they will bring to battle hostile gods;
the one hath Typhon fiery of breath, and on Hyperbius’ shield is
Father Zeus, sitting calm upon his seat while his bolt takes flame
from his hand; and never anywhere was seen a Zeus defeated. We
see, ’tis true, how frail is the gratitude of heaven! Still we are with:
the victors, and they with the vanquished, if Zeus is anyway a mightier.
combatant than Typhon, and if Hyperbius—there is at least a likeli-
bood that these human adversaries will prosper according to their.
blazons—may find protection from the fortunate Zeus upon his shield.

[Lxit Hyperbius.

Cho. Faithfully do I believe, that he, who bears upon his buckler
opposed to Zeus the figure of that creature from the underworld, friend-
less in heaven, that semblance abhorred of mortals and living gods, will
sink his head before our gate. :

Spy. So may it prove. Next in my report is he appointed to the
fifth gate, the /Vorthern, right opposite the barrow of Amphion, son of

1 or ‘at the gate near to Athena Onca’. which he bears (ὦ ἔχει)᾽ or ‘for the
2 ὅπλων σχέσις: either ‘for the arms fashion (ws ἔχει) of his arms’.

158 TRANSLATION wv. 515—568.

Zeus. He takes his oath upon a spear-head that he has, which he
trusts more than a god for its sacredness and better than sight,—his
oath that, come who may, he will waste the Cadmean town: so sayeth
‘the scion of Zeus begotten of her who dwelt in the hills’, in beauty’s
prime, man and yet boy, on whose cheeks is but just advancing the
adult growth of close soft hair. Cruel are his thoughts, ill suiting his
maiden name, but maiden-proud his flashing eye as he takes his
stand at the gate, not without proud announcement waiting: for on
the brazen buckler, whose round covers his body, is the reproach of
our town, the flesh-devouring Sphinx, a shining figure of beaten work,
attached with bolts of cunning contrivance, whereby he moved it. She
carries beneath her a Cadmean man, and never before for a single prey
did she fly through such a shower of missiles: it is like that once
arrived he will do no petty cozening in the trade of war, but some-
thing worthy the long journey he hath travelled’. ;
Et. Ah, if they might receive from the gods even the very intent

of their impious braveries! Of a truth they should perish, utterly and
miserably! But he also, the Arcadian of whom thou tellest, hath his
man, one who brags not, but hath for what may be done a seeing
hand—Actor the brother of the last-named. He will not suffer an
idle tongue to flow freely in at the gate and feed our troubles, nor
let him enter, who bears on hostile shield the monstrous image of that
creature abhorred. Outside shall she complain to her bearer within,
when she meets a hail of deating before the town. And for my part
in my cozening* I may have the favour of the gods.

[Zit Actor.

Cho. Their speech goes through my breast, and the hair of my
head stands upright, to hear impious mortals so loudly, proudly boast.
If the gods be gods, let these be whelmed in earth!

Spy. Sixth is one whom I must name the wisest of warriors and
bravest of seers, Amphiaraus. He in his post at the gate Homoloides
pours upon Tydeus many a bitter name, styling him man-slayer, vexer
of the public péace, in all evil Argos’ chief lessoner, summoner of the
Fiend, minister of Murder, and suggester of evil to Adrastus now. Thy
brother also, Polynices, he upbraideth in fit measure, turning his eyes to
heaven, and at the close twice with stress repeating his name*:—“ Surely
it is indeed an exploit zo de coveted*, an exploit grateful to heaven, and

1 *Parthenopaeus the Arcadian; he, with danger which fate fulfill not!’

such as he hath been shown, is denizen 2 reading καπηλεύσαιμ.
only of Argos, but to repay her for his 3 τ, 566 omitted.
fair breeding now threatens these towers 4 πολυνεικές : see note.

TRANSLATION 1. 568—620. 159

honourable for later times to hear and to tell, that one should storm
down the city of his fathers and the gods of his race with an invading
soldiery summoned in. As the blood of a mother is a fountain not to
be staunched by any atonement, socan it never be that, once thy father-
land by thy incitement conquered, she should make common cause
with thee again. Howsoever, I at least shall fatten the soil of this land,
shall have burial as a prophet upon her borders, though her foe. Let
us fight; the rites of death I shall not lose”. So spake the prophet,
bearing a shield of plain brass without blazon upon it, to the careless
ones around: for his desire is not to seem the bravest but to be, and he
reaps in thought the deep furrow, whence grows the fruit of good
counsel. Twere well to send him an adversary wise and brave;
worthy fear is he who worships the gods. |

ἘΠ Fie upon the fortune that in the unions of mankind joins
together the righteous man and the impious! Whatsoever we do there
is nought more evil than evil companionship ; the fruit of it is not for
the gathering; the field of sin bears the fruit of death. Sometimes,
embarked with hot-brained voyagers, men of a rascal sort, a pious man
doth perish likewise with the abominable crew. Sometimes in a city
a righteous one, joined with others cruel to man and forgetful of God,
being found contrary to nature in the same net, dies by the undis-
tinguishing blow of the divine spear. So shall it be with the prophet,
the son of Oecleus, a wise, righteous, brave, pious man, a mighty inter-
preter of heaven, confounded with wicked men, whose lips defy their
conscience. They are bound on that journey, whence ’tis an over-long
way back, and he, when Zeus takes them, shall also be dragged down. |
I think, therefore, he will not attack the gate at all—not that he lacks
courage, or from cowardice of heart, but he knows what their end will
be in the fight, if the warning of Loxias is to bear fruit, though he
choose to say nothing but what fits the time: but still for more secu-
rity we will set Lasthenes to keep the gate inhospitably against him,
an elder for his wit, but young in stalwart thews, whose eye is swift to
run, and of hand he is not slow to snatch the instant when the shield
uncovers the spear. But to prosper is a gift to men from heaven.

| Exit Lasthenes.

Cho. UHearken ye gods to our just prayers, that our country may
prosper in the wrestle of war; and turn away the invaders from our
soil (?). From his place without the wall may Zeus strike them dead
. with his bolt! |

Spy. Now am I come to the seventh champion for the Seventh
gate—thine own brother; of whom I must report to the town according

τέο TRANSLATION vv. 6:ο---669.

to his curses and imprecations upon her. He prays that, outlaw though
he be, he may set foot upon her walls, may raise a cheer-over her fall,—
then encounter thee and, if he may slay thee, die beside thee, or, if thou
livest, punish thee, his dishonourer and disfranchiser, with like and equal
banishment. So crieth he, and calls the natal deities of his father-
land to witness perforce the prayers of him, her Polynices indeed. He
hath a round buckler newly-made’, with a two-fold emblem cunningly
attached thereto. A man of beaten gold, in guise of armour, is led
by a female form, who goes modestly before, and says, as the letters
will declare, ‘I am Right’, and I will restore this man, and he shall
have a country, and come and go in his ancestral home’.—Such are the
inventions of them: it is for thee to decide thyself—Whom wilt thou
send ?—Thou shalt find no fault with me for my announcement—It 15
for thee, our captain, to decide the course for all.

£t. Ah, fatal frenzy *!...... Ah, lamentable house, our house of
Oedipus! Woe is me! . Now doth our father’s curse work its accom-
plishment. But it fits not to weep nor to wail, lest there come to the
birth yet a heavier burden of lament. As for this man, so fitly named,
this Folynices, soon will.we know what will be the end of his emblem ;
whether he shall indeed be brought home by gold-wrought figures
raving upon a shield, his maniac pair! If Right the maiden daughter
of Zeus had attended on his deeds and thoughts, this perchance might
have been. But neither when he came forth from the dark womb, nor’
in his rearing, nor ever since he grew to manhood, nor while his
chin was gathering its growth of hair, has Right given him look or
acknowledgment. Nor do I think that now, in this violence done to
his fatherland, she doth stand his comrade. - Else Right* in her
name were surely most unrightly wrong, if she were companion to
a man of villainous thoughts. In which trust I will go forth to
meet him myself—who else rather for his better right? Sovereign
to sovereign, brother to brother, foe to foe shall I encounter him.
Come, quick °— |

Cho. Nay, dearly beloved, nay, child of Oedipus, be not in rage
like him of the wicked name, It 15 enough that Cadmeans fight with
Argives ; there is blood for the cleansing of their stain: but death like
this of kindred men by the hands of kin—that 1s a pollution which time
takes not away.

1 or ‘newly-drilled’: see note. 4 The exact double sense of Alxy here
? or ‘Iam Right, as these letters will (ight-Nature) can scarcely be repro-
declare’. duced.

5. omitting τε., στύγος. 5 vw. 663 omitted.

Ἃ

TRANSLATION vv. 670—710. 161

ΕΔ If the hurt might be borne without the shame, ’twere good ;
for there is no other profit among the dead. But of hurt with shame
there is no good word to say.

Cho. What would’st thou, child? Let not ‘mad passion for battle
fill thy soul and carry thee away: cast out the beginning of evil
desire.

Et. Since fate doth urge the event so hard, let the wind sweep
down Cocytus’ destined wave all the house of Laius, which Phoebus
hates !

Cho. Too cruel the craving which tempteth thee to a rite of homi-
cide, a rite of forbidden blood'; and bitter the fruit thereof.

Ei. Aye, for with fatal suggestion my loving father’s hideous Curse
doth sit at my side, saying, ‘There is something better than death
deferred’.

Cho. But thou resist her urging. Thy fortunate estate will save
thee from the reproof of cowardice: and for the pall-clad Fury, will she
not depart from the house, when the gods receive offering of the hands?

Zt. The gods have well forgotten us long ago, and wonder to
receive service from wretches lost. Why then should we still be shrink-
ing from utter death?

Cho. Now is the fatal hour. For the power above may yet in time
change his mood and his breath blow milder, which now is yet fever-
hot.

£t. Being wrought, doubtless, to such heat by Oedipus’ prayer.
Too true was that vision, seen in sleep, of phantom forms dividing
a father’s wealth.

Cho. Let women persuade thee, though thou lovest them not.

ἘΔ Ye must ask then a possible thing, and that in brief.

Cho. Let this errand, this Seventh Gate, be any man’s but thine.

£t. Ihave that edge upon me, which thy words will not take off.
— Cho. Yet stooping to conquer is conquering still.

Ef. It is not for a soldier to love that saying.

Cho. And the blood of thy brother is the prize thou would’st
pluck?

£t. From evil which the gods give there is no escape.

[Axi Eteocles with his attendants.

Cho. Oh horrible fear! She, the deity undivine, she who de-
stroyeth a house, the right true prophet of ill, the Fury called by a

1 reading ἀνδροκτασίαν : with ἀνδρηλασίαν ‘to make an exile sure by a rite of
forbidden blood’.

V. Δ. 11

162 TRANSLATION υν. 710—776.

father’s prayer, fulfills the wrathful imprecation, which Oedipus spake
in the weakness of his wits! Deadly she is to his children, and their
quarrel calleth her to work.

He is no native, that he should divide the inheritance,—this Chalyb
‘from distant Scythia, this cruel steel, whose award shall cost them dear,
when he allots them for their dwelling-place so much land as they may
hold even dead, disportioned of yon wide plains. °

But when by kindred hands kinsmen are slain, and the dust of the
deep hath drunk the thick red gore, who can give cleansing, who wash
away their stain? Oh suffering house, where the young are confounded
in sins of long ago!

Aye, long ago was done the transgression whereof I speak (swiftly
punished, yet to the third generation persisting), when Laius, despite
Apollo’s command, spoken thrice in his oracle of Pytho at earth’s
centre, that to save his town he should die without offspring, never-
theless, his prudence vanquished by her he loved, begat death to him-
self, even Oedipus the parricide ; who lived to sow with a seed of blood
a sacred field, the mother in whom he was made. Folly and frenzy it
was that forced together the wedded pair !

And so as it were a sea of ill, one wave rising still as another fell,
hath rolled the triple-crested billow, whose seething waters threaten the
very helm of all; while there is but a narrow defence between, the
broadness of a wall. And I fear lest with our princes our country also
should go down. .

For ancient curses self-fulfilling are a heavy merchandise, and the
trader’s wealth, when grown too gross, doth not escape the coming of
destruction, but bringeth wreck of ship and all.

What man was ever so admired by the country’s gods, and by them
who shared their feast, and by the assembled throng of men, as they
honoured Oedipus that day, when the evil beast, whose prey was man,
by him was taken -from the place P

But when, coming to a clear mind, he knew himself miserable and
mis-wedded, impotent of his agony, in the madness of his heart, he
wrought a woe two-fold: because his hand had slain his father, he was
kept from his ancestral vessels of wrought gold (?)'; and being angered
at such accursed maintenance, he let fall, alas! upon his children a
curse of bitter meaning, praying that they likewise ‘with iron in hand’
might one day divide his wealth. And I tremble lest this hour the
returning Fiend may bring it to pass.

1 On this passage see the Jretroduction, § 4.

TRANSLATION vv. 777—806. 163

(Enter a SOLDIER’.)

Soldier. Courage, ye daughters mother-bred! Our city is saved
from the enslaving yoke. The boasts of the mighty ones are fallen; our
city in calm alike and in beating storm hath shipped no sea*. The
wall is sound, and our single champions, the bulwarks of our gates, were
worthy their trust. Well have we sped, for the most part, at six portals:
but the seventh the great lord Apollo, prince of the Seventh, took unto
himself, fulfilling upon the house of Oedipus the perversity of Laius
long ago.

Cho. But what fresh sorrow is there which importeth the city ?

Sol.

Cho.

Sol.
Cho.

Sol.
that—

Cho. Ah, they lie yonder?—Hormrible! yet speak.—Were their
murderous hands thus fatally alike? their life* thus united and timed
to the same hour ?

Sol, Even so: by its own spirit® perishes the ill-starred house.
These are things both for rejoicing and for tears, joy for the public
fortune and tears for the princes, who with forged iron of Scythia have
parted the total of their wealth, and of land shall have just that which
they shall receive in burial,...... * according to the fatal prayer of their
father.

The city is safe. But as for the king’s twin-born—

Who? And what of them? I dare not understand.

Hear now with understanding. The offspring of Oedipus—
Alas! alas! I divine the unhappy close.

Nay, but without mystery :—they have so mauled each other,

The city is safe; but as for the twin-born kings—the earth hath
drunk their blood, shed by each other’s hands.

. 1 The text does not imply that the
ἄγγελος of this scene is the same with
the σκόπος of the first part. The list of
dramatis personae in M identifies them,
under the name of ἄγγελος κατάσκοπος.

3 taking πόλις... ἐδέξατο as one sen-
tence: or, supplying ἐστέ with πόλις ἐν
εὐδίᾳ re, ‘our city rides in calm, and for
all the beating of the waves, hath shipped

no sea’. .

3 The δαίμων of this passage is the
‘angel’ or personified fate, which accom-
panied the existence of every person and
every family from beginning to end.
We have no word exactly similar. See
δυσδαίμονας and ἄτεκνους in v. 812.

4 popotuevor(?).

lI-——2

164 TRANSLATION vv. 807—863.

Cho. Oh great Zeus and deities of this place, ye who do indeed
protect these walls of Cadmus, am I to rejoice and raise the cry of
triumph unto the harmless Saviour of the town? or to weep for the sad
fate of our chieftains so unhappily born, for them who, charactered foo
truly by the fatal name, in desperate guarre/ through their impious hate
have come to their death?

Oh dark Curse of Oedipus, end of him and of his race! A sad
chill falls upon my heart. My Bacchant-song took funeral shape, when
I heard the tidings of these so miserably slain and weltering in their
blood. Alas! with what psalm inauspicious must we celebrate our war’!

She hath finished her work, she hath not tired, the solemn Sentence
bequeathed from sire to son. Counsels of disobedience, Laius, prevailed
not, for all thy public care! The inspired Word is ever fresh in power.
Ah lamentable race, this truth ye put out of belief: yet in real sadness
the sorrow came!

[Antigone and Ismene are seen approaching, with a procession bearing
the bodies of the brothers. |

Now, plain to be seen, that which was told us is before our eyes.
Oh princely pair, oh hapless hopes, oh murdered and murdering, oh
deadly and death-doomed,—ah for words yet! What need for more
than these, ‘Sorrow of sorrows for hearth and for home!’?

But oh, with the wind of sighs, and with that speeding stroke of
hand upon brow, which plies without ceasing over Acheron, row on that
ship dark of sail, that unblest missioner, whereon never Apollo sets foot
nor sunlight falls, to the bourn of all, to the unseen shore!

But now, see, they come, Antigone and Ismene, to do their bitter
office, the dirge of their brethren. Not with different grief, I trow, for
different desert, will their yearning bosoms utter their plaint. Our just
part it is, ere their voices be heard, to raise the hideous hymn of the
Avengeress and sing the cruel triumph of Death.

(Zhe procession begins to enter*.)

Ah sisters most unhappy of all who bind their robes with the belt, I
‘weep, I wail, nor is there falsehood in my heart’s most true lament.

Ah (speaking to the dead) ye hard of heart, whom love could not
bend, nor hardship break, have ye fought your miserable way to your
fathers’ house ?

1 The meaning of ξυναυλία δορός here between Antigone, Ismene, and the Cho-
would be exactly rendered in modern rus; but the parts are not now ascer-
analogy by ‘ Ze Deum’. tainable.

2 The following dirge was distributed

wp”

TRANSLATION vv. 864—928. 165

Aye, miserable they, who have destroyed the house to win a miserable

death.
' Ah, thou who would’st make a breach upon thy home, and thou,
who to thy hurt would’st be sole lord therein, ye are reconciled now by
help of steel. Too true fulfilment the awful Fury of Oedipus your
father hath made.

See the wounds in their left sides, those sides which lay in the
womb together! Alas, for their fate, for their cursed doom of mutual
death!

A deadly blow it is to heart and to home—a deadly blow—which
hath smitten them, divided’ by unspeakable fury and the fate which
their sire pronounced.

The city’s self thrills with a sigh, the stone walls moan, and the
land lovingly, all things which were the cause, the sad cause for which,
poor wretches, they furiously contended even unto death.

Keen to enjoy they so parted their wealth that their portions are
equal: yet the mediator hath not contented those who loved them, but
gave his favour unto the god of war’.

Iron with his stroke hath laid them here: iron with his stroke shall
yet lay them—ask ye where? In the grave with their fathers, which he
shall dig them for their portion.

Thither are they brought with saddest sound, the rending wail of
genuine grief, the true lament of a soul divided against itself, which
careth not to be glad, but poureth its tears, oh, truly from the heart ;
for my very heart doth waste as I weep for the royal pair.

And this may be spoken for their sad fyneral speech, that many
a martial deed they did on the falling ranks of their countrymen, and
many another too on foreign ranks, yet friends. .

A mother had they more unhappy than all women called by that
name. Her own child she took to her husband, and these she bare,
who thus have died, each by hands made with his own from the same

᾿ς geed.

‘One seed’ in truth they had, and, making partition not like friends,
by their mad quarrel utterly are they now undone at the ending of the
strife. Ὁ

Hate is no more; their life-stream mixes upon the gory ground
and their blood is one indeed.

Dearly they paid for peace, made by the stranger from the Great
Sea, the iron sent sharp from the fire, and dearly for the arbitrament of
false Ares, who gave them their father’s curse fulfilled.

1 reading διχόφρονας. 2 reading ἐπίχαρις δ᾽ "Apns.

166 TRANSLATION vv. 929—983-

They have received their pitiable share of the royal realm’, a bottom-
less wealth of earth, but all beneath.

Oh, many a wreath of fame your lineage hath won; yet now at
the close of all the Fiends have sung their shrill song of triumph for the
utter defeat of your destroyed line! Now is the trophy of Ruin set in
the gate, where the fight was fought till with a-double victory the evil
genius finished his work.

Antigone. Smitten thou smotest— Jsmene. And thou didst slay
and wast slain.

Ant, By the spear thou slewest— /sm. And wast slain by the
spear.

Ant. A woeful deed! Jsm. A woeful death!

Ant. Let speed the wail. /sm. Let fall the tear.

Ant. and Ism. Beside the slain shall the slayer be laid.

Ant. Ahme! Jsm Ahmel! ἢ

Ant. ¥or-grief my mind is lost— sm. And my heart doth
moan within.

Ant. Alas, alas thou woeful man— Jsm. And woeful thou, and
miserable—

Ant, By thine own didst thou perish— sm. And thine own
thou didst slay.

Ant, Two sorrows told— Jsm. Two sorrows seen.

Ant. A mourning pair by mourned pair—

ism. We sisters by our brethren stand.

Ant. and Ism. Ah fate unkind, bounteous of ill, ah dread shade
of Oedipus, ah, dark Fiend, what might is thine!

Ant. Ahme! J/sm. Ahme!

Ant. Sad was the sight— sm. Which his returning showed to
me. (?) |

Ant. He slew and yet he came not home— Jsm. But in deliver-
ance lost his life. -

Ant. Aye, lost his life— sm. And took a life away.

Ant. Oh woeful house! J/sm. Oh woeful fate!

ANE. cccreccscccceecans LSM viccsevaccscecees ‘

Ant. and Ism. Ah fate unkind, bounteous of ill, ah dread shade
of Oedipus, ah, dark Fiend, what might is thine !

Ant. Thou knowest it well, for thou hast tried—

7». And thou by that same lesson taught—

Ant. When to thy country thou didst come—

Ism. To encounter him who lieth here.

1 reading διοσδότων ἀρχέων.

TRANSLATION vv. 984—1032. 167

Ant. Oh saddest tale! Jsm. Oh saddest sight!

Ant. Sorrow— J/sm. And grief—

Ant. Tohome and land— J/sm. And most to me.

ANE 0 .....«ἀ{ νον ννννοννον LSM. cccccersvccencees

Ant, and Ism. Oh mad, oh miserable !

Ant. Oh, where in earth shall we lay them?

ism. Oh, there where most honour is—,

Ant. and Ism. By their father’s side, alas! unwelcome, to rest.

(Enter a HERALD.)

Herald. Yam to make known what was approved and resolved by
the council governing for the people of this Cadmean town. For
Eteocles here, it was resolved to lay him in earth, in digged grave,
made lovingly for his rest: for that he hated our foes, and, having done
all his duty to the religion of his fathers, hath died a death deserving
our grace’, with auspices such as make death fair. Thus it is com-
manded me to declare concerning Eteocles: but for his brother Poly-
nices here lying dead, that he be cast out unburied to the dogs, as one
who had dispeopled this Cadmean land, had not some one of our gods
thwarted his spear—by the spear of his brother here, who, though he
died, shall be worshipped for his deed—one of those ancestral gods in
whose dishonour this Polynices brought in a host to his aid and would
have sacked the town. Thus ‘buried’ with dishonour by the fowls of
the air, it is thought fit that he should receive his meed: and that no
mourners follow him to make him a tomb, nor grace him any more
with shrill lamentations; but let him be carried forth without loving
train. Thus it is resolved respecting these twain’ by the governors of
the Cadmeans.

Ant. And I declare to your chief Cadmeans this. If no other
will bury this corpse with me, I will bury him, and will dare the peril
of having buried my brother. Nor am I ashamed to be guilty of this
disobedient revolt against my country. It awes me that we were born
of the self-same womb, children of a hapless mother and of a miserable
sire. Therefore, my soul, take willing part in distress with him who
nothing wills; thou, that livest, be sisterly to the dead. Here are two
whose flesh not ravening wolves shall tear—so think it not! As for
' *burial’ and ‘digged grave’, I, woman as I am, will contrive him ¢ha#,
merely with what I may carry in this fold of linen raiment, and myself
will cover him. Spare your prohibitory decree! Courage will find the
means to do.

1 reading ἱλητὸν. 2 reading τώδε.

168 TRANSLATION ww. 1033—1079.

Her. I charge thee do not this outrage against law.

Ant. I charge thee use not thy function idly upon me.

Her, Nay, but a people is stern in the hour of a great escape.

Ant. Sharpen their sternness, yet shall he not go unburied.

ffer, And thou wilt reward with burial him whom the law abhors.

Ant. The gods—'tis a precedent,—have made no difference in his
reward!

Her. The difference began when he had imperilled this town.

Ant, He was but seeking vengeance for a wrong done.

Her, But he would have wreaked on all the offence of one.

Ant. Strife will out-talk all heaven. I will to bury this corpse.
Spare needless speech.

Fer, At thine own peril then, and prohibited by me!

[Exit Herald.

Cho. Ah shame! for shame!

Oh Fiends, oh Furies, ye whose triumph is a house destroyed, ye
who have thus utterly taken away the stock of Oedipus! Doing or
submitting, what way shall I take? How can I bear neither to weep
for thee nor attend thee forth for burial? Yet am I afraid and shrink
for fear of the people’s will. And yet ¢hou wilt find mourners many,
while he, alas! must go unlamented, with one sister’s voice for his only
dirge! Who can submit to that?

[Half the Chorus, with Antigone, prepare
lo follow the body of Polynices, the other
half with Ismene that of Eteocles.

Sem. Let the law punish or spare those who lament for Polynices!
We will follow his corpse /Azs way and aid in his burial. For by kindred
he hath equal part in our sorrow, and for the people’s law it teacheth
ever a new rule of right.

Sem. But we will go with Aim, as the people’s law teacheth, and
right likewise. For under the Blessed Gods and mighty Zeus, he more
than any saved the people from sinking even in a sea of foreign folk.

| [ Bxeunt,

INDEX I. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

(The numbers refer to the lines of the play.)

A.

d-yos, 1008

d-yos, 1008

ἀγχίπτολις, 488, Jntr. p. xx

ἀγών = ἀγορά, 759

ἀδάματος or ἀδάμαντος, 219

ἀδελφαὶ χεῖρες, 796

ἀδελφεός, 563

αἴθων, 435

αἷμα, corpse, 406

αἷμα δρέψασθαι, 705

αἱματήφορός, 406

αἱματόεις, 335

αἱνόμορος, 887

αἰσχρός, hideous, ugly, 681

Alo xivys θρόνος as a personal description,
396

ἀκών, 1024

ἀλεξητήριος, 8

ἀλκή, fight, 485, 863

ἄλλος, use of, different from other, 411, 473

ἄλλω, ἔτ᾽, 467

ἄλοξ, 580

ἀλύω, 378

ἅλως, form of, shield compared to, 476

ἀμείβεσθαι, not=%o accompany, 841

ἁμός, 404

ἀμπίσχω, 98

ἀμπυκτήρ, 448

ἀμφίβολος, 285

ἀμφὶ λίταν᾽ ἕξομεν, 98

ἄν, supposed cases of infinitive without,
in future sense, 416, 621

ἄν with past tense of indicative in ‘ con-
jectural’ sense, 696

dvatdaros, 880

ἀνδρηλασία, 680

ἀνδροκτασία, 680

ἁνήρ = βροτός, 425

ἄνθος, wreath of honour, 933

avola, 389

᾿Αντιγόνης σύρμα, 1030

ἀντίτυπος, 500

ἀπαρτίζω, 361

ἄπειστος, 861

ἄπιστος, 827, 831, 1031

“Apys, symbolically for war, fight, 53, 64,
331, 484

ἁρπαγή, passive sense, 333

ἁρπαλίζω, 229

ἀρτίκολλος, 360

ἀρτιτρεφής, 337

aprirporos, 320

ἀρχέων, genitive of ἀρχαί (?), 930

ἀσινὴς σωτήρ, 811

ἀσπίς Ξ- 3η1614-5146 of warrior, 611

ἀσπίδος, ἐπ᾽, 465

ἄστολος, 842

ἄτεκνος, 813

αὖ, now, not again, 244

αὐδάομαι, no deponent, 665

avddw, name, 665

αὐόπνοος (?), 189

aiirds, 132

ἀὐτής, 132

αὐτός, emphatic in oblique cases as well
as in nominative, 56, 180, 431, 434,
606, 656, 1028

αὐτῷ, ἐπ᾽, 434, 606

adw distinct from aiw, 169

170

᾿Αχαιός, 28 etc., Jnir. § 2
᾿Αχαιός θεόθεν, 311
ἀψνχία, 245

Β.
βάζω, 558
βάρβαρος, 450, Jntr. p. xviii
Big φρενῶν, 599
βλαβή, 183
βλάστημον (?), 12
Praxd, 335
βληχή, 335
Bod = βοήθεια, 88
βοῇ, σὺν, 474
βρέμομαι, 337
βρέτας, 95, 208
βριμή etc., 448
Bornp οἰωνῶν, 24
βουλεύομαι, deliberate, opposed to ἀκούειν,
obey, 180, 219
βουλή, in antithesis to δῆμος, 180

Γ.

γάρ, referring to the clause following,
183; τάφον ydp=and as for burial,
1028

yas δόσις, wine, 348

γενέθλιοι θεοί, 626

γένος, class or sort, 171, 212, 502

γίγας, 413

γίγνομαι, grow, be produced, of plants,
20

γόμφοι, as attachment of moveable figures,
529

yopyés, γοργωπός, γοργῶπιν, etc., 524

γράμμα, 647

γυναικεῖος, masc. and fem., 171, note to
translation

A.

ddios, go2

δαϊῴρων, 001

δαΐῴρων, 902

δακρύομαι, 799

δέ used where later use would prefer
γάρ, 713

δέ for usual re where there i is contrast as
well as connexion, 220, 572, 828

δέ, position of, 41, 181, 586, 903, IOIs

δῆμος, in political sense, 181, 997

INDEX I. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

δήμου πρόβουλοι, 997

διαδρομή, 338

διάνοια, 816

διαπεράω, experience, 980
διαπέτομαι, 531

διαρκέω, 827

διατιμάω, 1038

διατομή, partition of land, 918
διὰ χερῶν, 420

δίκη, nature, 594, 658

δίκῃ, σὺν, 431

δινέω, δῖνος, εἴς.» connexion with ἅλως, 476
δινωτός, 476

Διρκαῖα ὕδατα, Δίρκης πηγαί, etc., 259, 294
διχόφρων, 882 .

δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντα, 906
δορός, οὐχ ἑνὸς (?), 100

δόρυ, spear-side of warrior, 611
δουλόω, 240

δρᾶν rt, 1058

δρέπεσθαι αἷμα, 705
δυσευνάτωρ, 280

δύσχιμος, 490

E.
ἑβδομαγέτας, 785
ἕβδομος, one of seven, 118
ἔδαφος, of work in relief, 482
ἕδος, 150
ἐδώλιον = θάλαμος, 442
els, not equivalent to τις, 530
εἶσι ἀρτίκολλον (ἁρμόν Ὁ), 360
ἔκδικος, 594 .
ἐκεῖθι, 795
ἐκθέω, 23
ἔκκρουστος, 520
ἐκτός, 251
ἑκτός, 251
ἐμβριμάομαι, 448
ἐν, instrumental, 28, 267
ἐναίρω, 796
ἐνδατεῖσθαι, 565
ἐν εὕρει, 748
ἐντυκάζεσθαι (?), 133

᾿Ενυώς, masc. form, 45
᾿ ἐξῃκασμένον, οὐδὲν, 432

ἐξυπτιάζων ὄμμα, 564
ἐπανδράς (ἐπαναδιδράσκω), 269
ἐπανθέω, ἐπανθίζω, 933

INDEX I. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

ἐπάξιος, 851

ἐπεύχομαι, vow after another, 266

ἐπί, with dative of the object or other
circumstance of an action, 701, 998,
KOSI

ἐπὶ αὐτῷ, 434, 606

ἐπέἔγονος (?), 886, Jnér. p. xi #. 1, po xxix.

ἐπικηρύσσεσθαι, passive, 621

ἐπίλυσις, 124

ἐπιλύω, 124

éwippobos, 355

ἐπίχαρις, 894

ἐπὶ χθονός, 575

ἔπος, τοῦτ᾽, 566

ἐραί (?), 416

ἐρατός, active sense, 850

ἐργάζομαι, make, render, with adj. pre-
dicate, 831

ἔργμα, two meanings of, 543

“Eper (ὃ), 416

ἕρπω, 17

ἔρως, in general sense of desire, 675, 850

ἔσθημα, 265

ἑτερόφωνος, 155

Erupos, 82, Appendix 11.

ἐτύμως, gor, Appendix II.

ededpos, 94, 306

εὔκηλος, 224, 577

εὐκλείαν ἐρεῖς, 672

εὐναία-- εὐνή, 098

εὐνή, grave, 995; 998

εὐπραξία, apologue respecting, 210

εὐσέβεια, personified, 331

εὐτυκάζομαι (?), 133

ἐφίσταμαι πύλαι, 525

Ζ.
ξωπυροῦσι τάρβος τὸν λεών, 277

H.
ἡμερόσκοπος, 66, 7577. Ὁ. xii note 1
ἠχέω, 854

Θ.
θάρσει πάρεσται, 1032
θεόθεν ᾿Αχαιός, 311
θεοί, εἰ θεοί, 553
θεός --τύχη, fortune, 21, 35
Ouds, 485, 821, J#tr. Ὁ. xviii

171

. 1.
ἱκνέομαι λόγους for ἐς λόγους, 273
ἱλητός (Ὁ), 1000
ἴσον λελιμμένος, 341
ἰχθυβόλος μαχανά, 123

Κ.

Καδμεία νίκη, 7,117. Ὁ. xxv note 2

καί, also, even, just, merely, etc., 74, 166

καὶ...τε, not=doth...and, 567

καινοκηγής, 629

καίρια, λέγειν τὰ, 1, 606

κακὴ νίκη, 703

κακός, false, 927

καλλίπρῳρος, 520

καμψίπους, 776

καπηλεύω, 532, 549

καταλλαγή, matter of exchange, merchan-
aise, 752

καταξιόομαι, 654

κατασποδέω, 794

karextpéww (Ὁ), 615

κατεμβάλλω, 302

κενὸς κενὸν καλεῖ, 340

κενὸς δορός (?), 100

κέρδει κέρδος ἄλλο, 424

κῆδος, equivocation upon, 126

κλῇθρα, claustra of the race-course, 383

κλίνομαι δορί, 334

κλύων πλόκαμος, 553

κομμός, 839

κομπάζω, 528

κομπάζω ἐπί, 467

κομπάσαντα, ἄνδρα, 423

κρείσσω τέκνων ὀμμάτων (Ὁ), Zntr. Ὁ. xxx
note

Kpornoyos, 548

κτύπον δέδορκα, 100

κύβοι, hazard, 401

κύκλος, corona, ring, 578

κυρέω, 387

κύτος, frame, 482

κώδων, 373

A.
λαγχάνω ἐν (?), 438

λαπάζω, 47, 443
λάφυρα, 264, 466
λελιμμένος, ἴσον, 342

172

Aedxaomis, 89, 7.7. Ὁ. xxii
Nirava, 99

λόχοφ, 7527. Ὁ. xi

Avxatos, 131

Avxeos, 131

λύω νόμισμα, pay, discharge, 256

Μ.

μακρὰ πάλιν μολεῖν, πομπή, 600

μάστιξ, 505

ματᾶν, 37

μελάνδετος, 43

μέλας, 43, 481

μέλει, 274

μέν, without antithesis expressed, 21, 736

μὲν͵. .τε, QO7

μενεῖ κτέανά τ᾽ ἐπιγόνοις (?), 886

μή with subj., in principal sentence signi-
fying probability, 183

μηδέ, emphatic negative (ot even) with-
out previous negative clause, 1068, and
see οὐδέ

μητρὸς πηγή, 571

μιν, 440

μνημεῖα, 49

μολών, returning, upon return, 271, Intr.
p. xili note

μόρα, 563

μόρος, 407, 576

ναός, 265

νέμεσιξ, 221

Νεμέτωρ, 472

νίκη κακή, 703

νίκη Καδμεία, 7577. p. xxv note 2

νόμισμα λύω, 255

νῦν, enclitic, always short in Aeschylus,
228

νῦν ὅτε, 692

ξόανα, 208
ξυμ- ξυν-, See συμ- συν-
Ο.

ὁ, demonstrative pronoun, 179, 293, 496,
531, etc.
Ὄγκα, 149, 473, 488, 75πέ7. Ὁ. xx

INDEX I. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

ὅδε, marking close of a series, 618, 935

ὁδός, 322

ὁδός, as verbal substantive to ἱέναι, 37

οἰκιστήρ, 19

οἷός γε, 620

ὄκνος, 54 :

ὄλλυμαι, disappear, pass away, 318, 408,
554

ὀλολυγμός, 244

ὅμαιμος, 923

ὀμμάτων ὑπέρτερον, 517

ὀμμάτων, κρείσσω τέκνων, (ἢ 769, 7.77.
p- xxx note

ὁμόσπλαγχνα πλευρώματα, 874, Infr. p. x
note 7

ὁμόσπορος, 917

ὀπάζω, 242, 479.

ὁπλίζω, 420

ὁρκάνα πυργῶτις, 333

ὄρνεον, omen, augury, 1002

ὄρνις, fate, chance, 584

ὅς, relative clause with, where ὅσος would
be regular, 803

ὅσιός Twos, 1001

broBos, 187

οὐδέ, emphatic not, not even, 1026, and
see μηδέ

οὔδωρ (ὕδωρ), 259

οὔτε μεῖον οὔτ᾽ ἴσον λελιμμένος, 341

II.

πάγχυ Πολυνείκους, 626

παλινστομέω, 244

παναρκήξς, 151

πανουργία, 590

πάντρομος, 280

πάντροφος, 280

πειθαρχία, apologue respecting, 210

πέπλοι καὶ στέφη, decorations of statues,
97

πηγὴ μητρός, 571

πήγνυμι, proper to carpentry, 629

πικρὸν ἰδεῖν, 866; cf. 717, 924

πίτυλος, 841

πλεκτάνη, 482

ποδωκὲς Supa, 610, 7:17. p. xxiii

πολιάοχος, 106

πόλις (rodttocobxos), of the céladel or

INDEX I. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

sanctuary, 69, go, 168, 204, 207, 219,
233, 257, etc.

πόλις, in political sense, for πολῖται, 57,
71, 240, 1021, 1062, etc.

πόλισμα, two meanings of, 233

πολῖται θεοί, 239

πολυνεικής, passive sense, disputed, 567

πόμπιμος, 358

πόντιος, from the Euxine, 924

πόνος, 934

πρέμνοθεν, see πρύμνοθεν

πρέπω, with genitive of comparison, 117

aw poBovdos, 997

τροπομπός, 1061, Jer. Ὁ. xxxii note 3

πρότερος, superior, better, 684

“προσεδαφίζεσθαι, 483

προσσέβω, 1014

προστατήριος, 436

προστάτης, 1017

προσφίλεια, 502

προσφιλής, 502

πρύμνοθεν, 71, 1048

πύργος, opposed to πόλιφ (wall...citadel),
202, 220

πυργοφύλαξ, 153

πυργῶτις ὁρκάνα, 333

πυριβρεμέτας, 191

πυριγενέτας, 191

πυρὸς δίχα, 25

πυρὸς κάσις, 481

κύστις, 54

P.

ῥέουσαν, γλῶσσαν ἐργμάτων ἄτερ, 544
ῥνυσίπολις Παλλάς, 121

Σ.

σάκος, 43, 146, etc. (This word appears
to be used only of the shields of the
besiegers)

σάρξ, muscle, 609

σηματίζω (?), 452

σιδηρονόμος, 773, (ntr. p. xxx note 2

σίδηρος, ‘the arbitrator’, 718, 869, 892,
924

σποδέω, 794

στόμαργος, 434

στέγω, 1000

στνγῶν ἐχθρούς, 1000

173

συμβολέω, συμβολή, etc., 339
σύμφοιτος, 648

συναυλία δορός, 824

συνέστιοι πόλεως, 758
συντέλεια, 237

σῦριγξ, in the chariot, 188
σύρμα ᾿Αντιγόνης, 1030
σφάγια καὶ χρηστήρια, 216
σωτήρ, title of Zeus, 507
σωτῆρος γυνὴ πειθαρχία, 210

ot.
τάχ᾽ εἴσομαι, 247
τε, position of, 12, 885
Te, answering to μέν : see μέν
re...d€: see δέ
τέλειος, official, 152.
τέλειος, self-fulfilling, fatal, 682, 751
τέλειος and τέλεος, 751
τελεσθέντων νεκρῶν, 7217. p. xxvii note 4
τελέω, perform a rite, 680
τέλος, power in personal sense, 148
τέλος, rite, νύκτερον, 354
τίθημι, with verbal substantive as equi-
valent for verb, 46, 175
tis, in threats, etc., 389, 1027
τοιοῦτος, τοῖος, for a fore-going adjective,
567
τόκος, of two persons, 792
τροκαῖον, 263
τρόπον τὸν μέγαν, 270
τρόπον οὗ μικρόν, 452
τροφεῖον, 464
τυμβοχόος, 1013
τύπος, 476

YT.
ὑπ’ ἀσπίδος dow (ἢ), 372
ὕπαστρον (?), 375
ὑπέρκομπος or ὑπέρκοπος, 442
ὑπέρκοπος, with genitive, 442
ὑπό, with dative (?), 375

Φ.
φέρε, 662
φθόρον, és, 138
φίλος, 270, note to translation; 735
φιμός, 450

174 INDEX I. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
φόβος, terror, for that which causes terror, χερός, διὰ, 500

256, 487 χερών, διὰ, 420
Φόβος, a god, 45 χηρόω, 313
φονάω, 124 χήρωμα, 1013

χθονία κόνις, 723
χρεία Ξ- χρῆσις, 493

φορέω, carry to the grave (?), 804
φρενός, ἐκ, 859, 903
φρενῶν Bla, 599

2.
ὠγύγιος, 308
x. ὧδε, here, 262
xalpw, 429 ὠμόδροπος or ὠμοδρόπος, 320
Xapa, 429 ὠμοφαγία, 679
χάροψ, 429 ws, modal, so far as, 223

χεὶρ ὁρᾷ, 541
χείρωμα, error for χήρωμα, 1013

ws, consecutive (ὡς πλεῖστ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἀνδρὶ τῷ),

δ31

INDEX II.

ENGLISH.

(Zhis Index contains, besides proper names, such matters only as could not con-

ventently be indicated in the former.

A.
Abstract for concrete (xavovpyia for
πανοῦργοι), 590
Accusative :
τὸν μέγαν τρόπον, on the great scale, 270
λόγους ἱκέσθαι for és λόγους, 23
μέριμναι ζωπυροῦσι τάρβος τὸν λεών, 277
τλήμονες εὐνάν, 351
ἀπαρτίζει κόδα, 361
τοιαῦτ᾽ ἔδοξεν τῶδε (?), 1016
τούτω σάρκας σπάσονται λύκοι, 1026
Achaeans: general term for the be-
slegers, 28 etc., 2.27. § 2; of dif-
ferent speech from the Cadmeans,
155; of different religion, 311
Actor, 542
Actors, sense in which Aeschylus is said
to have used two, 996
Adjective :
verbal in -ros formed from deponent
verbs, 251
verbal in -ros governing the same case
as verb, 251
“πολέμιος φόβος = πολεμίων φόβος, 256
neuter, as adverb qualifying a whole
sentence, 682
Adrastus, 50, Jnir. pp. x, x1, xvi, xxiii,
Xxvii
Adverbs in -θεν, pregnant use of, 40, 68
Alcaeus imitated, 385
Alliteration, 2, 648
Allotment of the gates, manner of, “εν.
_ Ρ. xix

The numbers refer to the lines in the play.)

Amphiaraus, 556, /#fr. pp. xi, xix, xxiv,
XXV, XXVil; place of burial, 575
Amphion, founder of Thebes, mention of,

515, letr. Ὁ. xvii
tomb of, 515, 79,27. p. xx

‘Anachronisms’, 263, 450, 485, 997

Anacrusis extra metrum in choric verse.
See Appendix I.

Animal deities, 131; add reference to
ἵππιος, title of Poseidon, sometimes
identified with the horse, 122

Aorist: infinitive without ὧν as future,
supposed cases of, 416, 621

participle, difference from present, 423

Aphrodite: see Cyfres

Apollo and the house of Laius, 678, 731,
786, Jair. p. x; identified with Av-
Kewos, 131 .

Arcadians, 519; others beside Partheno-
paeus went with Adrastus, 7,272. p.
Xxiil —

Ares: Enyos (’Evuds), 45, 7127. p. xxiii

god of the Cadmeans, 102
κηδεστής of Cadmus and the Cadmea,
128, 7217. Ὁ. xviil
and the Σπαρτοί, 399, 459
his temple called δῶμα πατρός, 466
represented upon a shield, 459
Aristides, 577
Artemis, 138
represented upon a shield(?), 437
Λατογένεια κούρα, 133
Astacus, 394

176 INDEX lf.

Atalanta, 519

Athenian legend respecting the burial of
Adrastus’ companions, /#ér. p. xxvi

Attraction of the antecedent, 387

Augury of Teiresias, 24 °

B.

Bacchus, worship of, not recognised in
the religion of the Cadmeans, /#¢r.
p- xvii

Bells, as an instrument of war, 373

Blood, mingling of, as a symbol of kin-
dred, 923

shedding of, as a symbol in taking an

oath, 43: and see Purification

Brass, Achaean shields etc. made of, 146,
373, etc., 2,27. p. xxii

Burial of enemies, 7,227. p. xxv

ς.

Cadmea, Cadmeans, 7,227. § 2

Cadmus, 7,27. pp. xi, xvi—xviii

Caesura of tambic senarius, peculiarities
in, 238, 372, 307, 444, 618, 996,
1037, 1044

Calydon, 377

Capaneus, 410

Chariots and horses of the Achaeans,
50, 60, 80, 115, 135, 137, 186, 231,
233, 448, 462, 79:7. Ὁ. xxii

Chiromancy, 796

Comparative degree, Greek use of, where
English has positive, 585

Creon, 460 -

Crest, triple, 371

Cypris, ancestress of the Cadmeans, 127,
L[ntr. p. xviii

D.
Date at which the play was exhibited,
Lntr. p. xxxii
Dative of interest or possession, 16, 166,
264, 621, 907
with αἴρεσθαι κῦδος, fo win glory of, 303
approach to absolute use of, 217
of circumstance (Latin ablative), δου-
λίαν ψαφαρᾷ σποδῷ, 310
‘of part affected’, 683, 819, 873
with ὑπό (?), 375

Gates, Jnr.

ENGLISH.

Delphi, influence of on Aeschylean
legends, 7,217. p. x
Dialectic forms, irregular use of, for
poetic colour, 259, 447, 519. 590
Dialogue on the Seven Champions,
speeches not equal in, ἤν. p. Xxxvi
Didascaliae, Intr. pp. xxxii, xl
‘ Dircaean stream’=Ismenus, 259, 294
Dirge (θρῆνος), 940
Divination of Teiresias, 24
by the mantic trance, 370
before passing a river, 365
chiromantic, 796
Dream of Eteocles, 697

E.
Ellipse of principal verb, 2, 596
Epigoni, 883, /#¢r. Ὁ. xi note 1, p. xxix
Epithets, Aeschylean limits in use of
double, 629, 850
Equal length of speeches, not to be
assumed, 7,227. p. xxxvi
Eris, allusion to apologue respecting,
1042
Euripides: Phoenissae, 413, 528, 663,
7.17. pp. xii, xviii, xix, xx note 1,
xxi note 4, xxxvii
legend respecting Parthenopaeus in
Supplices of, 534
legend respecting burial of the be-
siegers in Supplices of, Intr. pp.
ΧΧΥΪ, xxviii
reference to this play in the Medea of,
61; 7527. Ὁ. xxxvii
satire on Theban legends in Bacchae
of, Jntr. p. xxvii
verse of, contrasted with that of
Aeschylus, 7227. Ὁ. xxxviii

F.
Fetish worship in Arcadia, 516

G.

p- xix; Proetides, 364;
Electrae, 410; Neistae, 445; On-
caeae (?), 473; Borraeae, §14; Homo-
loides, 557; Hebdomae, 618

Genitive:

with verb implying comparison, 117

INDEX I.

Genitive :
with ὑπέρκομπος, 442
depending on neuter adjective (πρό-
τρυμνὰ ἐκβολῶν), 754
depending on relative clause of quantity
ὅσος, 8s), 803
‘of the agent’, not an exact ex-
pression, 776
Gods depart from a taken town, 204

H.

Harmonia, 7». p. xviii
Hellas, Hellenic, use of the names,
Intr. p. xviii
Heracles, legends of, not noticed in this
play, 7.17. p. xvii
Hermes (chance), 495
- Hieroglyphics, 541, 610, 7527. p. xxiii
Hippomedon, 475
Homer, /iiad 12. 243 imitated, 1002
allusions to Theban legends in, 77,277.
Pp. xvi, Xvii
Horses: see Chariots
head-gear of the Achaean, 115, 189, 450.
Hyperbius, 491

I.

Iambic verse, broken verses in, 640:
see also Caesura, Pause, and Trochee
Images of the gods (βρέτη) decorated
with robes and wreaths, 98
placed at the prow of a ship, 192
regarded as the defenders of the
sanctuary, 206
of Athena saved from the Persians, 208

removed by the gods upon the taking °

of a town, 208

Interruption, dramatic, 663

Ismenus, 259, 365, “2277. pp. xx, xxi
note 4

L.

Laius, legend of, 728, 7227’. p. x
Lasthenes, 607
Legends, allusions to lost, 434, 496, 785
Leto (Latona), 133
Lots, see Allotment
Lycides, member of the Athenian βουλή,

allusion to his death, 18a

V. 4E.

ENGLISH.

. Μ,
Maidens, the Chorus consists of, 107,
156
may touch the gods, 251
Mantic: see Divination, Prophet
Marriage: see Threshold
Medicean MS., Jztr. Ὁ. xxxiii
Melanippus, 401, Jat. p. xxiv
Metal-work, skill of Achaeans in, 7217.
p- xxii: see-also Shzeld's
Metaphors and Similes:
men as children of the earth compared
to plants, 17; host (wavdoxéw), 18;
lions, 54; ship of state, 2, 62, 109,
192, 639, 743, 780—783, 1069;
stream or torrent, army compared
- to, 80, 853 a sound ‘seen’, 100; roll
of chariots compared to music, 186;
bridles compared to rudders, ΤΟΊ ;
hail (sas) of missiles, 197; clouds
of distress, 215; dove and serpent,
279, 490; Tydeus compared to a.
snake, 368, to a horse ready for
a race, 380; Ouds, warrior com-
pared to, 485; hair ‘hearing’, 551;
draught of fish, righteous and wicked
compared to, 5942 beating of hands
in mourning compared to beating of
oars, 839 ; ship of the dead compared |
tomission-ship (@ewpls), 843; triumph-
song of the Furies, etc., 935
Metre: see Jambic verse, Caesura, Pause,
Trochee, Synaphea
of Strophe and Anttstrophe, Appen-
dix I.
Mother, kindred derived through, 571
Motto on shield, 421, 455, 633

N.
‘ Nominativus pendens’, 172

177

O.

Oath of the Seven, 43
of Parthenopaeus by his spear-head,
516
Oedipus, legend of, 736—775, Jutr. pp.
%, XXix, XXxii
Qenops, 491 .
Onca, 149, 473, 488, 7,177. Ὁ. xx

I2

178

Optative, deliberative in dependent sen-
tence, 56

P,
Pallas ῥυσίπολις, 121
Onca, see Onca
Pan and Apollo, 132
Parthenopaeus, 519
Participle and substantive, used as in
Latin (γυμνωθὲν δόρυΞ-" the uncover-
ing of the spear’), 611
and finite verb in antithesis, 578, 743;
800, 933
Passives, irregular in ante-classical and
post-classical Greek, 621
Pausanias, his topography of Thebes,
Intr. Ὁ. xx3 at Argos, ἐδ. p. xxiii
Pause in senarius after first foot, 20, 64,
366, 498, 566, 619, 634, 660, 671,
. 1008
after second foot, doubtful, 256
- Pindar, J#ér. pp. xxiii, xxvi—xxviii
Pluperfect, force of, 460
Polynices, 618, /#fr. 88 1 and 4: see also
Verbal Equivocations
Polyphontes, 435
Poseidon ἵππιος, 122; god of waters and
of the underworld in general, 296
Preposition and case depending on sub-
stantive (ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων φόνοΞ), 806,
885, ΙΟΙ5
Proetus, 382, 7,227. p. xxi note 4
Prometheus Vinctus, Aeschylus’ view of
the legend of Zeus and the Titans as
shown in the, 502
Prophet, respect of the enemy for, 576
Purification for homicide, 666, 725

R.

Relief, metal work in high (rv7o0s), 475
Rhesus, imitation of this play in the, 373

S.

Sack, description of a, 325

Scholia, Intr. p. xxiv

Seven, the, difference between the Ae-
schylean and post-Aeschylean story
respecting, 77:27. Ὁ. xxiil.

INDEX I.

‘ENGLISH.

Shields: devices upon (σήματα) ; moon
and stars, 373; dixy(?), 402; πύρφορος,
419; Artemis (ὃ), 4373 Ares, 459; ἀνὴρ
éwNirys, 453; Typhon, 480; Zeus, 499;
Sphinx, 525; hand and eye, 541; foot
and eye, 610; Δίκη and ἀνὴρ τευχη-
ὁτής, 630

form of, compared to ἅλως, 676

with moveable figures, 527, 630

with inscriptions, see Motto ᾿

of the besiegers, difference from those
of the besieged, Jutr. p. xxii

Siege of the Cadmea, compared to that
‘of Troy, /#tr. p. xi

Sophocles, his story of Oedipus different
from that of Aeschylus, 995, 2,227. p.
xxx note 2

Antigone of, treatment of the question
of the burial of Polynices in, com-
pared with that of Aeschylus, 7" εν.
p- Xxvili; allusion in, to the hour of
the great attack, 259, 2927. Ὁ. xii
note I

Thebes and Thebans in, J#tr. pp.
xvii, xxii

Sparti, the, 399, 461

Spear-head, magical, 517

Speeches not equal in the dialogue on
the Seven Champions, 27277. p. XXXVi

Sphinx, 528, 761 .

Strophe and Antistrophe, correspondence
of, Zntr. p. xxxv, Appendix I.

Synaphea in anapaestic verse, 809, 812

T.
Teiresias, 24
Temples decorated with spoils, 264, 466
Tethys, 298
Tetralogy, Jntr. Ὁ. xxxii
Thebais, the ‘cyclic’, tr. pp. ix, XXX
note 2, xxxi
Thebes and the Cadmea, 7,127. § 2
Theology, Greek popular, 601
Thersander: see Zpigoni
Threshold, passing over, as a symbol ¢ of
marriage, 322
Title of the play, J#¢r. pp. ix, xvi, xxxiii
Trident of Poseidon, 123 - . k
Trilogy, Jatr. p. xxxii

INDEX 11.

Trochee, in first foot of iambic senarius,
475) 534. See also Appendix I.

Trumpet, signal for races, 382

Tydeus, 364, 558, /nir. pp. x, xi, xxiv—
XXVil

Typhon or Typhoeus, 480

V.

Verbal equivocations: κῆδος, 126; ψῆφος,
180; ἀκούω, 185, 2323 ἔσθημα, 265;
κλῇθρα, 383; νύξ, 390; ἐγχώριος, 400;
προστατήριος, 430; ἐπ᾽ ἀσπίδος, 465;
ἀντίτυπος, 500; Παρθενοπαῖος, 523;
ἔργμα, 543; ἔξωθεν εἴσω, 547; Hodv-
γείκης, 564, 567, 628, 645, 815;
᾿Αριστείδης, 577; Δίκη, 658; ᾿Αμφιά-
pews, 556; σιδηρονόμος, 773, 7227. p.
xxx note 2; ἑβδομαγέτας, 785; Ereo-

——

ENGLISH. 179

κλῆς, 814; ἄπιστος, 831 (cf. 827);
alyéuopos, 887; Aaxal, 898; ὁμόσποροι,
917; ὅμαιμοι, 923; and see Appendix
II.

Vision: see Dream

W.

Wine, the gift of the earth, 348

Wolf-worship, 131

Women performed the ὀλολυγμός, 254
χῆρος, epithet proper to, 313, 1013
dress of, 850, 856, 1030

Writing : see Motto, Hieroglyphics

Ζ.

Zeus, Nemetor, 472; Soter, 507; Homo-
loius, 616

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,